jerryR34

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? 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.

================================================================================================ It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" . 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: ‘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. 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?

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).

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.

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

======================================================================================== I already did, SEE Kerkut's "Documented/Cited" Definition I posted. And who cares what they say, it's what "scientists" can support/validate via the Scientific Method. Baloney. Since you are the one "believing" it, why don't "You"-------Support It? Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) x 2. Show this so-called "beat down"? Baseless Generalized Assertion (Fallacy) Are you gonna support your baseless assertions @ some point? I say again.... DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from nucleotides and aminos, respectively. It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE. That's just the Hardware! DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer! To refute: 1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR.... 2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence. These are Strawman to evolution as Hydrogen is Strawman to H2O Thanks for your input.

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. 2 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 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.

Translation: "I have no argument". I provided the "Documented" definition for the General Theory of evolution and refuted it.... quite abruptly. Before you can start discussing "evolution", my first two points "that you forgot to address" must be answered. No sense in describing the steak before first establishing the existence of the cow. There is no "Scientific Evidence" for evolution, so your question is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy). I'm not asking you to refute it; I'm asking you to just tell me what the scientists say evolution is (I can tell you what creationists believe – can you grant me the courtesy of understanding the other side?). In all my interactions with you and other creationists I have never been provided that. I only see a bunch of straw men – your last post being the latest - that get beat down by those that offer them. I'm looking for a creationist to be intellectually honest.

=========================================================================== Equivocation (Fallacy): since 1980 @ the very least.... Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'.... "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." Roger Lewin PhD, Science(Vol.201(4472):883-887,1980. Moreover: ‘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. So, Please.... DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from nucleotides and aminos, respectively. It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE. That's just the Hardware! DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer! To refute: 1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR.... 2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence. I agree, especially for your position....you have "quite enough"---See Above, with just "Biological" Enoch...I'm looking for someone in the creationist camp to tell me what scientist put forward as evidence of evolution. If you can't, then debate is pointless as you do not know against what you are debating.

I asked you to explain your understanding of evolution. That would tell me a lot about how much I should value your opinon of the topic. Your post and my experience with creationists leads me to believe they have not delved deeply into the topic. Could you give me some bullets on what you think the theory of evoulution espouses? That would give us a starting point for debate. If you know the creationist have less knowledge than you on this subject why are you here debating with them? If creationists have all the answers, why debate those who think evolution is the best answer for speciation? Why start a thread that says "Science disproves evolution"?

How about we stick to biological evolution? In biological evolution, 5 and 6 are one and the same. Now, could you kindly describe how you think that scientist describe biological evolution. Thanks - if we go off on too many tangents, it gets to be a mess.

Can we really say that given the almost infinitesimal amount of space in the universe that we can inhabit? it makes more sense to say that we adapted/evolved to fill the tiny space that we could.

I really don't have anything to corroborate your post. Maybe you meant something else? Maybe "contradict"?

I asked you to explain your understanding of evolution. That would tell me a lot about how much I should value your opinon of the topic. Your post and my experience with creationists leads me to believe they have not delved deeply into the topic. Could you give me some bullets on what you think the theory of evoulution espouses? That would give us a starting point for debate.

This post really highlights the fact you don't know much about evolution. Even if you don't "believe" evolution, you should educate yourself on it if you are going to comment. This post is just fluff with nothing to back it up. I could copy and paste it from any creationist website. How about you tell us what evolution says (keeping in mind you don't "believe" it). This will tell us how educated you are on the subject.

ugggg...yes, by all means we should just stay ignorant. do you believe that is what God wants?

Regardless, they are equal...

Women = Men, Period

I asked about intercession and even included a question mark - yes I'm asking. Sevenseas, on 27 Aug 2014 - 2:06 PM, said: The 2nd sentence seems to indicate a low opinion of the intelligence of believers...ie...let someone else do the thinking for them I'm a believer...not sure what you are talking about... Intercession is a heretical concept. God knows all and sees all. If He wants to change our circumstance He will, He does not need us to direct Him. Intercession is a nutty concept adopted by the Catholic church to gain power for the Church. For me, I will read my Bible in my closet and trust God to interceed when He sees fit not when one of my friends prays for me on Facebook.

I think you can believe whateve you want if you are a bible literalist...after all, the sun stood still in the sky. Anyone with an iota of science education would realize what that would mean for our planet.

If God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, what is the need for intercession? Sounds like something a man-made church made up about 1600-1700 years ago and many sheep are eager to follow...

On the contrary, we "developed" (do you mean evolved?) the way we did because God programed us this way. We adjust to our different environments but they have nothing to do with our development. you are sidestepping the probablility issue. "We" is life. The universe was not created for life, life arose where and how it could. You misread the Bible when you use probability the way you do.

That sounds to me as if you are limiting God to one of man's languages. Take it to God. I would recommend the same to you.

Why?

That sounds to me as if you are limiting God to one of man's languages.