Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Creationists, I'd be interested in learning about your knowledge o


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
81 replies to this topic

#1
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about.  If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. 

As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation…

 

Genesis:

 

 

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

 

My understanding of this is that God spoke all creatures into existence starting with fish, mollusks, marine mammals, all other sea creatures and then the birds.  Then God created the land creatures.

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

After that, God created Man (Adam) in his current form to rule over all the creatures of the earth.

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

 

After Man and all animals had been created, God rested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • 1

#2
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about.  If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. 

As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation…

 

Genesis:

 

 

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

 

My understanding of this is that God spoke all creatures into existence starting with fish, mollusks, marine mammals, all other sea creatures and then the birds.  Then God created the land creatures.

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

After that, God created Man (Adam) in his current form to rule over all the creatures of the earth.

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

 

After Man and all animals had been created, God rested.

 

 

================================================================================================

 

I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about.

 

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" :huh:.  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

Here's the definition "that you ran away from" here: http://www.worthychr...6#entry2145282

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

 

I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming

 

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".


  • 2

#3
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Gender:Male

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.

 

Enoch:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" :huh:.  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.

 

Quote:

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.


  • 1

#4
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,637 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, Great Britain
  • Interests:Archery, painting, plants and animals, Medieval history

I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about.  If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. 

As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation…

 

Genesis:

 

 

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

 

My understanding of this is that God spoke all creatures into existence starting with fish, mollusks, marine mammals, all other sea creatures and then the birds.  Then God created the land creatures.

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

After that, God created Man (Adam) in his current form to rule over all the creatures of the earth.

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

 

After Man and all animals had been created, God rested.

 

I always understand evolution to apply only to life forms and not to the creation of anything before life (eg. matter), so obviously we can only focus on that particular area.

 

However, I can see if we apply strict evolution to the explanation of how God created life in the Bible then I can see that the two explanations do not match.

 

The Bible explains that God created most life forms all at once, so to speak - whereas evolution suggests a chain of events that took place over a long period of time, starting with the simplest of life forms and then moving to the most complex with various branches appearing and some extinctions occurring.

To be honest with you, I've never let one explanation interfere with the other even though at first glance they appear to be mutually exclusive.

Before I became a believer, I was what you might call a theist-agnostic, which means I've always believed that there was some sort of god or intelligent designer and that evolution didn't really clash with this very much. As far as I was concerned, the creator could have been an experimenter who either modelled things in stages or set the ball rolling, sat back and watched as random things happened, interfering only occasionally to get the results that he wanted.

Now of course, it's different and because I believe in every word of the Bible, I realise that evolution as most people view it just does not match with what is said in Genesis.

However, it doesn't interfere with my faith. Evolution is only an observation and the fact that some organisms are related to others genetically does not forbid the presence of a designer, if anything it complements it. God could have always used the blueprints of one of his designs to create a similar design in something else.

 

Let's put it this way. If you were to examine how wolves became domestic dogs and then how domestic dogs became so varied that we have every variation in shape and size such as Chihuahuas and Great Danes, and if you applied evolution theory to this it would suggest randomness without an intelligent designer, but we know that wolves turned into dog breeds through the intelligent designs of man. We actually created dogs ourselves.

Likewise just because evolution suggests randomness, it does not mean that God does not exist.

 

I believe that God created animals and plants exactly as Genesis suggests. In fact there may have been a lot fewer species than there are today which explains how Noah managed to get all the different animals onto the ark. What has happened since then that we refer to as 'evolution' could be one of a number of things. It could be that God continues to experiment but the Bible ignores this because it's irrelevant to our salvation,  or it could be that God placed an automatic randomness into things and from time to time things change because they are designed that way. It could even be something else. Could it be that Satan himself has interfered with DNA and he likes to tamper too? He doesn't have the ability to create life himself but in the same way that we have the ability to breed dogs (create something else from God's creation) then Satan can probably do the same on a much larger scale.

Whatever the answer is I don't know, but evolution doesn't affect my faith one bit. I'm neither for nor against evolution - it's just a red herring that doesn't have any bearing on anything that really matters.


  • 2

#5
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.
 
Enoch:
Quote:
It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" :huh:.  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.
 
What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.
 
Quote:
You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".
 
Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

 
 
=============================================================================
 
 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?

 
This is my thinking....
 
"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html
 
Any questions?
 
 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

 
‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
 
evolution without abiogenesis is tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight.
  • 1

#6
OldEnglishSheepdog

OldEnglishSheepdog

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,381 posts
  • Gender:Male

The theory of biological evolution is the theory that all biological diversity can be accounted for by unguided forces (most notably random mutation and natural selection) acting on a common cellular origin.


  • 2

#7
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

The theory of biological evolution is the theory that all biological diversity can be accounted for by unguided forces (most notably random mutation and natural selection) acting on a common cellular origin.

THANK YOU!   You do not know how much this simple post means to me.


  • 1

#8
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.

 

Enoch:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" :huh:.  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.

 

Quote:

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

I don't need a primer, just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says.


  • 1

#9
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about.  If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. 

As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation…

 

Genesis:

 

 

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

 

My understanding of this is that God spoke all creatures into existence starting with fish, mollusks, marine mammals, all other sea creatures and then the birds.  Then God created the land creatures.

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

After that, God created Man (Adam) in his current form to rule over all the creatures of the earth.

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

 

After Man and all animals had been created, God rested.

 

I always understand evolution to apply only to life forms and not to the creation of anything before life (eg. matter), so obviously we can only focus on that particular area.

 

 

Yes, evolution as secular science teaches only begins after the creation of life (as I understand it). 


  • 1

#10
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about.  If possible, I’d ask that there be no commentary on what they think the veracity of the theory is, but only what they think that scientists espouse – your disagreement with the theory will be understood. 

As an olive branch, I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming, will offer up an objective view on creation…

 

Genesis:

 

 

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

 

My understanding of this is that God spoke all creatures into existence starting with fish, mollusks, marine mammals, all other sea creatures and then the birds.  Then God created the land creatures.

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

After that, God created Man (Adam) in his current form to rule over all the creatures of the earth.

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

 

After Man and all animals had been created, God rested.

 

 

================================================================================================

 

I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about.

 

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" :huh:.  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

Here's the definition "that you ran away from" here: http://www.worthychr...6#entry2145282

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

 

I as one who views the evidence of evolution as overwhelming

 

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Can you tell me what secular science says about evolution without commentary?


  • 1

#11
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

 

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.

 

Enoch:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" :huh:.  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.

 

Quote:

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

I don't need a primer, just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says.

 

 

====================================================================================================

 

Reification (Fallacy)----"science" doesn't say anything, it's not alive.

 

The Theory of evolution is utterly bankrupt and leaves it followers with nothing more than a barrage of Logical Fallacies and enough pseudo-science to make 13th Century Alchemy and Phlogiston blush.

 

Oh and by the way, the Elephant is still in the Room; and he's still eating....

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

As for yet another ad hoc hypothesis (PE, Convergent et al)...."random mutation and natural selection"----- was put together with neolithic incompetence as an "end run" around Kerkut's definition out of sheer incoherent desperation; It's as dead as abiogenesis.

 

Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information.  About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information".  It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).

DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information".  In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

 

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts.  hmmm
Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)

 

Question:  If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S Green Earth are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a Good Day!)?

 

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect? :duh:    

It's probably the reason why Drosophila,  after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail! And it's still a fly!

 

Ernst Mayr  Professor of Zoology at Harvard University...

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles. 
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

Pierre Grasse:  Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.......

 

"This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."  
Pierre Grasse PhD

 

'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'
John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

Epigenetics renders all of this but a laughing stalk


  • 2

#12
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

 

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.

 

Enoch:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" :huh:.  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.

 

Quote:

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

I don't need a primer, just trying to see if anyone here is willing to give a non-biased view on what the science says.

 

 

====================================================================================================

 

Reification (Fallacy)----"science" doesn't say anything, it's not alive.

 

The Theory of evolution is utterly bankrupt and leaves it followers with nothing more than a barrage of Logical Fallacies and enough pseudo-science to make 13th Century Alchemy and Phlogiston blush.

 

Oh and by the way, the Elephant is still in the Room; and he's still eating....

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

As for yet another ad hoc hypothesis (PE, Convergent et al)...."random mutation and natural selection"----- was put together with neolithic incompetence as an "end run" around Kerkut's definition out of sheer incoherent desperation; It's as dead as abiogenesis.

 

Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information.  About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information".  It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).

DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information".  In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

 

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts.  hmmm
Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)

 

Question:  If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S Green Earth are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a Good Day!)?

 

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect? :duh:    

It's probably the reason why Drosophila,  after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail! And it's still a fly!

 

Ernst Mayr  Professor of Zoology at Harvard University...

 

The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles. 
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

Pierre Grasse:  Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.......

 

"This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."  
Pierre Grasse PhD

 

'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'
John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

Epigenetics renders all of this but a laughing stalk

 

I asked a pretty simple question that you do not seem to be able to answer.


  • 1

#13
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

Can you tell me what secular science says about evolution without commentary?

 

Secular Science doesn't say anything, it's not alive: Ergo....Reification (Fallacy).  See: Barrage of Logical Fallacies, previous post.


  • 2

#14
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Gender:Male

 

Jerry, i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.  If you need a primer on evolution, it might be better to look at the National Center for Science Education or something similar.

 

Enoch:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" :huh:.  As an "alleged" Scientific Theory, it must be defined specifically to then be Validated or Falsified.

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?  I think you mean something else, but I want to make sure.

 

Quote:

You have Zero "Scientific Evidence"....See: Definition Above.  Unless you can show Life from Non-Life.....??  You can't even show "One" DNA/RNA/Functional Protein spontaneously form "Naturally" from the "Building Blocks".

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

 

 

=============================================================================
 

 

What is your thinking about a scientific theory? Are you saying that a theory becomes fact after adequate evidence?

 

This is my thinking....

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

 

Any questions?

 

So there we go.  You seem to be saying (as you have in the past) that a theory which primarily deals with past events does not pass muster.   I have to say (as a believer in creation as well) that this distinction between "operational" and "historic" science seems to be a product of creationist thinking.  Just do a general google search for historical science and you'll see what I mean.
 

 

Non life to life is outside evolutionary theory.

 

Baloney....

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

evolution without abiogenesis is tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight.

 

That depends on a great extent, to whom you ask the question.

 

btw, what do you think of my new hat I got in California?


  • 2

#15
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

 

btw, what do you think of my new hat I got in California?

 

love the hat.


  • 1

#16
Tristen

Tristen

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts

Hi Jerry.

 

Evolution is the general term used to describe the secular explanation accounting for the observed variety of life on earth. It is variously defined; incorporating a range of concepts such as Natural Selection, Speciation, Genetic Mutations, Common Ancestry etc. It has been overly-simplistically defined as change over time. I have also seen it defined as any heritable change in a population.

 

 

[Am I permitted to respond to your posted claim that “evidence of evolution as overwhelming”? – if not, please disregard the following]

 

As a creationist, the only above concept I dispute is Common Ancestry (along with its required/assumed time frames and the necessary assumption of abiogenesis). There are no logical discrepancies between the other concepts and Biblical creationism. I suspect that the “overwhelming” amount of your “evidence” falls into one of these other categories. Also, since the creationist claim is that all of the facts that are interpreted to support evolution can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, the amount of “evidence” is irrelevant. We all have the same facts (and therefore the same amount of facts). Neither position has the legitimate right to arbitrarily disregard any fact.


  • 2

#17
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,431 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Jesus, The Bible, Family, Discipleship, Friends, Israel, Movies

There should be a distinction as well between YEC (Young Earth Cretinism) and OEC (Old Earth Creationism).


  • 2

#18
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Interests:camping computers

The theory of biological evolution is the theory that all biological diversity can be accounted for by unguided forces (most notably random mutation and natural selection) acting on a common cellular origin.

Like when God started creating all the different things he just made a general life form and flipped a few thousand genes and he had a cow and flipped a few thousand genes and he has a horse and on and on till he gets to man.......    then instead of just speaking into reality mankind he made us by hand.....    like a fine hand made car we turned out kind of special.

 

 

Then if you believe the book of Enoch and Jasper, one understands that the fallen angels did some gene flipping themselves....  messed up the whole worlds genome and God had to wipe it all out.......    but the remnants of all that are still in the different layers of the settlement of the flood for us to dig up and look through.  Did you know that when something is found that goes against evolution, the Smithsonian will get it if it can and either hide or destroy it; and if it can't ridicule it to death.

 

Is that the kind of thing your looking for Jerry?


  • 2

#19
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

Hi Jerry.

 

Evolution is the general term used to describe the secular explanation accounting for the observed variety of life on earth. It is variously defined; incorporating a range of concepts such as Natural Selection, Speciation, Genetic Mutations, Common Ancestry etc. It has been overly-simplistically defined as change over time. I have also seen it defined as any heritable change in a population.

 

 

[Am I permitted to respond to your posted claim that “evidence of evolution as overwhelming”? – if not, please disregard the following]

 

As a creationist, the only above concept I dispute is Common Ancestry (along with its required/assumed time frames and the necessary assumption of abiogenesis). There are no logical discrepancies between the other concepts and Biblical creationism. I suspect that the “overwhelming” amount of your “evidence” falls into one of these other categories. Also, since the creationist claim is that all of the facts that are interpreted to support evolution can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, the amount of “evidence” is irrelevant. We all have the same facts (and therefore the same amount of facts). Neither position has the legitimate right to arbitrarily disregard any fact.

haha thanks Tristen...you are permitted to post anything you want here.  I was just trying to keep the thread from going too far off the rails.  I like your answer except for the "overly-simplistically" comment which implies some judgment...

 

the second post falls into the evidence for one thing can be evidence for everything category.  Evidence for everything is evidence of nothing.  Hindus, Muslims etc could all use our evidence to back up their claims.  Where do we draw the line.  I say we draw it just short of magic...


  • 1

#20
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

The theory of biological evolution is the theory that all biological diversity can be accounted for by unguided forces (most notably random mutation and natural selection) acting on a common cellular origin.

Like when God started creating all the different things he just made a general life form and flipped a few thousand genes and he had a cow and flipped a few thousand genes and he has a horse and on and on till he gets to man.......    then instead of just speaking into reality mankind he made us by hand.....    like a fine hand made car we turned out kind of special.

 

 

Then if you believe the book of Enoch and Jasper, one understands that the fallen angels did some gene flipping themselves....  messed up the whole worlds genome and God had to wipe it all out.......    but the remnants of all that are still in the different layers of the settlement of the flood for us to dig up and look through.  Did you know that when something is found that goes against evolution, the Smithsonian will get it if it can and either hide or destroy it; and if it can't ridicule it to death.

 

Is that the kind of thing your looking for Jerry?

 

while you put it very nicely, no, what I'm looking for is for you to explain what evolution is from the view of those you are opposed.  Do you know what the "other side thinks?  If one can't accurately describe that, it's really difficult to argue against it.


  • 1




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network