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

[jerryR34]

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

what are your views on evolution? (assuming you are in the OEC camp)

[other one]

 

 

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.

 

so you want me to explain what an evolutionist thinks......   hummmmm,    I don't think I want to play...

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

 

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...

I think you may have misinterpreted a couple things in Tristen's post.

First, the comment about evolution being overly simplified in its definition was not in reference to the theory being overly simplified, but the definition of the theory as simply any kind of hereditary change over time. That unqualified definition alone does not necessarily entail what evolutionary biologists mean by evolution, and by that definition I would be an evolutionist, even though I believe in special creation some thousands of years ago.

As for the evidence being common to all, the point there is evolutionists often make a category error when referring to evidence. We all look at the same rock formations and fossils and that is the evidence. The evolutionary interpretation of the evidence is what people usually mean when they say the evidence favours evolution.

While I agree with what Tristen said, I'd go a step further and say that while there are individual forensic scenarios that creationists have trouble accounting for, there are just as many that are equally problematic for the evolutionist, but the body of evidence is vastly more consistent with YEC, whether in the strata or under the microscope.

In fact, the probability of human evolution by unguided forces was calculated by Barrow and Tippler in their book The Cosmological Anthropic Principle, to be so improbable that the sun would many times over have ceased to be a main sequence star before it could ever occur. Therefore, evolution could only occur through some kind of divine intervention and would therefore not be natural but miraculous. This is what many theists believe but I think that the enterprise of science must rely on methodological naturalism, and therefore evolution is unscientific.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

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

 

 

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.

  

Yes, that's Right....it's not science, by definition.  Any Hypothesis'-----which then leads to Theories, that can not be TESTED via Experiment because it's in the Unobservable Past or any other reason are "Just So" Stories.

 

Empirical:  Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable....is the Bedrock Foundation of Actual Science.  Can you tell us "specifically" how to satisfy this criteria in relation to a past event without a Time Machine?

 

 

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.

 

Define Specifically "Creationist Thinking"....then can you connect it coherently to your assertion?

 

The distinction is based on Definition, Common Sense, and Junior High School General Science.  Once you get past the Equivocation (Fallacy), it's readily apparent.

 

So Google has the answers, eh? lol

 

Please specifically refute {with Cited Source(s)} this instructional University Level Physics Department description/explanation...

 

"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.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)

 

What do you suppose Dr. Feynman would say to "theories" that are untestable??

 

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

 

That's why in "science" we have definitions and strict protocols/standards to eliminate Subjective Opinions. This should be the first clue that you're well off the "Science Reservation" and into Politics/Cake Decorating/ favorite sports team et al Genre's.

 

Let's ask Professor Gerald Kerkut PhD Zoologist, Physiologist, Biochemist (evolutionist)....

 

‘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.

 

 

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

 

Not bad, any cattle with that?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

I like your answer except for the "overly-simplistically" comment which implies some judgment...

 

But isn't a judgement exactly what you asked for in the OP??......  Jerry: "I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about."

 

Define Self Contradiction?

 

 

Evidence for everything is evidence of nothing.

 

Like this.....

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, Geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology…..

 

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything."  {Emphasis Mine}

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

I like your answer except for the "overly-simplistically" comment which implies some judgment...

 

But isn't a judgement exactly what you asked for in the OP??......  Jerry: "I’d like to offer a forum (thread) for creationists to write about what they think biological evolution is all about."

 

 

Not at all, i was looking for an objective definition with no commentary.  Seems very hard to get.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Hey Jerry, it's a bit of a tall order to ask for an objective definition with no commentary when you're inputting your own commentary in your request. When you say that the evidence is in favour of evolution, or you just want us to admit what the science says, that's not objective definition but commentary which invites response.

 

I have no problem providing objective definitions, but you're opening the discussion wider by your own commentary.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

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

 

Not at all, i was looking for an objective definition with no commentary.  Seems very hard to get.

 

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

 

 

How is asking for "what they think" Objective?  Especially when what they "think"------ by the inherent nature of what somebody "thinks".... is the Textbook definition of Subjective and the Antithesis of Objective. This is Tantamount to asking for a cup of Water without H2O  .   Probably why it "seems" hard to get.

 

Here's the "Objective" definition (for the 10th time now)...

 

‘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.

 

 

Still awaiting any semblance of a response....

 

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.

[jerryR34]

Hey Jerry, it's a bit of a tall order to ask for an objective definition with no commentary when you're inputting your own commentary in your request. When you say that the evidence is in favour of evolution, or you just want us to admit what the science says, that's not objective definition but commentary which invites response.

 

I have no problem providing objective definitions, but you're opening the discussion wider by your own commentary.

where in this thread have I offered commentary?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

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

 

I'd go a step further and say that while there are individual forensic scenarios that creationists have trouble accounting for

 

For instance....?

 

And of course since it's "Forensics" as in "Unobservable Past" we are well outside the confines of the Scientific Method.

 

 

calculated by Barrow and Tippler in their book The Cosmological Anthropic Principle, to be so improbable that the sun would many times over have ceased to be a main sequence star before it could ever occur.

 

In Fact, it's exponential magnitudes worse.....Impossible.  Not only the Direct Contradictions of the Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry, Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity but Immaterial from Material and the Origin of Information------- the sine qua non of Life.