Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

You mean, "Yes, I agree Darwin struggled with both those issues."

No, he merely noted in On the Origin of Species, that the geologic record of the time was very poorly noted, and made an important prediction:

Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record.

That prediction has been repeatedly confirmed; it's one of the reasons scientists have acknowledged the fact of common descent.

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

We do not have a huge amount of transitional forms

Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you:

Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

Dr. Todd Wood, The Truth about Evolution

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

further the Cambrian explosion is a disaster for gradualism of neo-Darwinian evolution.

It is now known that a large assemblage of complex animals, some with body plans previously thought to have first evolved in the Cambrian, existed long before the Cambrian.  

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

This is why we saw efforts at modifying that thesis with punctuated equilibrium. 

No.   Punc Eek was to explain why we have abundant evidence of transitional forms above the species level, but few species-to-species transitions.    Of course, if Darwinian evolution were false, we'd have no transitionals at all.

10 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Not sure why you would cherry-pick YEC references since these experts have a storied history of misrepresenting scientific data. 

Drs. Kurt Wise and Todd Wood both have very good reputations for honesty.   If you know of a dishonesty by either of these gentlemen, I'd be pleased to see it.

 

[omega2xx]

On 2/26/2020 at 7:23 PM, The Barbarian said:

If you have to insert your new doctrine into the existing text, that's a pretty good clue that you have it wrong.

If so, then God didn't create living things, since He says that the earth brought forth animals.   The Biblical view is that He created animals, but not ex nihilo.

It says God made them according to their kinds, not that they reproduce according to their kinds.

Again, you're merely adding your own ideas to scripture and telling me that you must be right.   Surely, you see how unconvincing that is.   If it doesn't say it, then adding it to God's word is useless.

As usual you have it backwards.  It was Darwin and his evangelist who came up with  a new doctrine.  It is them and ones like you and one opinion who are adding to God's word and you even do that is an unscientific way.  "After their kind" is so simple that even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it.  Plant life and animal life  must have well over a million different species.   To believe some blob that you don't  even know what it is, had the genes necessary to produce the very distinctive survival traits we see today is the height of absurdity.  What is unconvincing  is that you can't prove what you have accepted by faith alone.

Young Earth creationists say:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

Also as usual, you take something out of context to try and make you very unscientific case.  "After their kind certainly verifies that in words even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ can understand, verifies that each species will reproduce exactly as we see  it happening today.  You have to distort proven science to try and justify your pseudo science.

The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.   AIG

It does for anyone with the necessary  intellect to understand "After their kind."

 

 

 

On 2/26/2020 at 7:23 PM, The Barbarian said:

That's what Answers in Genesis says, but even though they are YE creationists, they are quite right.   If the Bible doesn't say it, then it's wrong to say it's a Biblical idea.   Even most YE creationists now admit the fact of new species, genera, and families.   Sometimes, they go farther than that.   

That is your usual bolony, and as usual you cant post a  link that says MOST YE creationists admit there are new species , and sometimes they go farther.  It seems all you can do is make up things you would like to be true.  Shame on you.

That's not what "ex nihilo" means.   It means "from nothing."   And since we have His word that the earth brought them forth, that means they were not created from nothing, but from pre-existing  matter.

DUUH.If you think dead elements can produce life, you are in worse shape intellectually that I have thought.  God back to Gen 2:7.  There God formed, not created man from the lifeless dust.  He did the same thing with animals(Gen 1:25).  No life on earth came into being without God's had providing the power. 

You've been misled by that.   Some texts said mud, some said dust, some said slime.  All of it means from the earth. Gen 1:20-21 Tells  us what God did, 1:25 tell us what He used  to create the animals

Actually you are the one who has been misled because you are ignorant  of Hebrew.    Apar(dust) can not mean mud or slime, and you can't post a reliable Bible that uses those words for dust.  Again you have just invented something you hope some as ignorant  of the language as you are and want to believe it, will accept what you say.  Now prove me wrong and reference a reliable Bible that uses mud or slime.  I predict you will ignore this request, but I am not going to let you.

Love, peace, joy

On 2/26/2020 at 7:23 PM, The Barbarian said:

 

 

[Uber Genius]

On August 20, 2019 at 12:48 PM, bcbsr said:

For being a government institution Smithsonian is not allowed to take official stands in the area of religion.

And yet Eugenie Scott of NAtional Center for Science Education has radically pushed for philosophical naturalism since she took the helm in 1986 and pushed for atheism in her writings. Her lectures have attacked intelligent design with mocking and derision. How is it that one can affirm atheism and not theism. Actually this is not the case, free speech includes religious speech and it is allowed at the workplace and yes, even lectures given. There is a restriction on the Smithsonian declaring a specific religious affiliation due to the establishment clause. Similarly what Scott has done is much closure to violating that clause than is someone got up and gave a design inference as an abductive inference. In fact State Universities since the mid-1970s have engaged the design inference for the fine-tuning for life of the universe. Watson and Crick have both given design arguments for the origin of the complex specified information found in the earliest DNA.

As long as you are not establishing a religious affiliation, the Smithsonian is NOT able to prohibit  speaking and lectures that have content with religious implications. 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/5/2020 at 1:37 PM, Uber Genius said:

And yet Eugenie Scott of NAtional Center for Science Education has radically pushed for philosophical naturalism since she took the helm in 1986 and pushed for atheism in her writings. Her lectures have attacked intelligent design with mocking and derision.

A lot of theists have attacked ID for both scientific and religious issues.    It's not a very good fit with Christianity, although it has been more generally accepted in Islam.

On 3/5/2020 at 1:37 PM, Uber Genius said:

How is it that one can affirm atheism and not theism.

One can criticize faulty science, including attempts to insert religious notions in the guise of science.

On 3/5/2020 at 1:37 PM, Uber Genius said:

In fact State Universities since the mid-1970s have engaged the design inference for the fine-tuning for life of the universe.

Do you have a cite for a state university asserting that they universe was designed?    I don't doubt that there are employees of these universities who have, but academic freedom permits them to make claims not endorsed by their collegues, departments, and universities.  What do you have?

On 3/5/2020 at 1:37 PM, Uber Genius said:

Watson and Crick have both given design arguments for the origin of the complex specified information found in the earliest DNA.

Crick proposed, in a book called Life Itself, that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings.

https://creation.com/designed-by-aliens-crick-watson-atheism-panspermia

And Watson has argued that black people are genetically less intelligent than other people, a belief that is laughed at by geneticists, so there is that.   It is a cautionary tale for science; being capable at one thing, does not make one an expert on all things.

On 3/5/2020 at 1:37 PM, Uber Genius said:

As long as you are not establishing a religious affiliation, the Smithsonian is NOT able to prohibit  speaking and lectures that have content with religious implications. 

The First Amendment  prohibits the establishment of religion or suppression of free practice of religion.    Asserting a religious idea on the public dime is illegal, but asserting an idea with religious implications on the public dime is not illegal.    So there's some weasel room at the edge.

 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/5/2020 at 12:09 PM, omega2xx said:

As usual you have it backwards.  It was Darwin and his evangelist who came up with  a new doctrine. 

The only religious doctrine Darwin came up with is at the end of his book, when he suggests that God just created the first living things.   And that's not a new doctrine; Genesis says the same thing; the Earth brought forth living things as God intended.   So it's hardly a new idea.

On 3/5/2020 at 12:09 PM, omega2xx said:

"After their kind" is so simple that even a cave man with a 2 digit IQ can understand it. 

Of course.   But some creationists have modified it to "reproduce after their kind" to make it more acceptable to them.

On 3/5/2020 at 12:09 PM, omega2xx said:

To believe some blob that you don't  even know what it is, had the genes necessary to produce the very distinctive survival traits we see today is the height of absurdity. 

God says the Earth brought forth living things.   You think the Earth hbas genes?     Even if your own wisdom deems it "absurd", we do have God's word on it.    I believe Him.

Answers in Genesis says:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging. 

On 3/5/2020 at 12:09 PM, omega2xx said:

It does for anyone with the necessary  intellect to understand "After their kind."

You and your fellow creationists will have to work that out.   When you guys figure out what you believe, get back to us, O.K.?

Yehren, earlier:

That's not what "ex nihilo" means.   It means "from nothing."   And since we have His word that the earth brought them forth, that means they were not created from nothing, but from pre-existing  matter.

 

On 3/5/2020 at 12:09 PM, omega2xx said:

DUUH.If you think dead elements can produce life, you are in worse shape intellectually that I have thought. 

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

I believe Him.   You should, too.

Douay-Rheims:

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

"Slime" was included in the sense of potter's clay:

Isaiah 65:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
 

But the sort of legalism that natters on about the moisture content of the earth used (in an allegorical reference) making man, seems to have missed the entire point of Genesis.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

On 3/8/2020 at 10:28 AM, The Barbarian said:

The only religious doctrine Darwin came up with is at the end of his book, when he suggests that God just created the first living things.   And that's not a new doctrine; Genesis says the same thing; the Earth brought forth living things as God intended.   So it's hardly a new idea.

The  original idea of the church was that God created all life and "after their kind" teaches dogs  will always produce other dogs and nothing but dogs.  What Darwin invented disagrees with that.    So he was the one with a new, and nonscientific theology.  If you think an element without life in it can produce life, you are in worse scientific knowledge than I first imagined.  Please offer all of us how an element with no life can produce something with life.  Did this dead dirt produce the first blob of life evolution claims.  That is about as silly and non-scientific theology one can invent.

Of course.   But some creationists have modified it to "reproduce after their kind" to make it more acceptable to them.

No they haven;t.  You are making up things you can't verify.

God says the Earth brought forth living things.   You think the Earth bas genes?     Even if your own wisdom deems it "absurd", we do have God's word on it.    I believe Him.

Your theology requires the earth to have genes, not mine,  To think  it does and according to  you it must have them, only exposes the non-scientific reasoning of  of evolution,  What you offer and as usual with no supporting evidence, is not what the Bible teaches , if one has the intellect to understand it.

Answers in Genesis says:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging. 

I have answered those comments before and it will not be of any value to do it again. The claims of the TOE has clouded your mind and made you think the TOE is based on science.  Yet it is obvious you can't support your theology with any real science.

You and your fellow creationists will have to work that out.   When you guys figure out what you believe, get back to us, O.K.?

There is nothing for us to work out.  God told us what happened and it  is proved thousands  of time every day, can't be falsified and "after theire kind" never changes.

Yehren, earlier:

That's not what "ex nihilo" means.   It means "from nothing."   And since we have His word that the earth brought them forth, that means they were not created from nothing, but from pre-existing  matter.

YAWN

 

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

I believe Him.   You should, too.

When you can  explain how dead dirt can produce life, get back to me.  When you can explain how deadt dust and obtain genes to give to the first blob  of life, get back to me.

Douay-Rheims:

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

When the Douary Rheims and original KJ were translated the scholars did not understand Hebrew as well as the do today.  This cause them to mistranslated some words.  The KY translated "murder" as kill.   The mss from which all translaltions are used, do not contain "slime" in any of its verses.

"Slime" was included in the sense of potter's clay:

I doubt that, so how about a reference.

On 3/8/2020 at 10:28 AM, The Barbarian said:

Isaiah 65:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
 

But the sort of legalism that natters on about the moisture content of the earth used (in an allegorical reference) making man, seems to have missed the entire point of Genesis.

Evidently you don't understand "legalism" either  and Genesis doesn't say anything abut the moisture content of the earth.  What ever you are using for your source, let me suggest you get a new one.

Love, peace, joy

 

On 3/8/2020 at 10:28 AM, The Barbarian said:

 

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

The  original idea of the church was that God created all life and "after their kind" teaches dogs  will always produce other dogs and nothing but dogs. 

That's not what it says.   It's your addition to His word to make it more acceptable to you.

Even most YE creationists admit that new species appear.   As you see, most even accept new genera and families.

From Answers in Genesis:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging. 

From the Institute for Creation Research:

There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described, and recently it has been estimated that 10 percent of all animal species still hybridize (mate with other species, producing fertile offspring) in the wild, and even more when brought into contact with each other in captivity. This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended.

https://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

How do they justify this?   They just say "it's not real evolution."    But remember, biological evolution has a very precise meaning.    "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time."   So they've tried to escape the inevitable by using their own definition of "evolution."

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Your theology requires the earth to have genes, not mine

When I tell you that God says the Earth brought forth living things, that's not the same as saying that the Earth has genes.   You're so tied up in your new doctrines that it won't let you accept His word as it is.

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

That's not what it says.   It's your addition to His word to make it more acceptable to you.

I did not add any words.  I gave you an example of "after their kind" that is proved thousands of times every day by observation and is repeated, and you can't falsify it.   It was so simple for anyone who understands English.

Even most YE creationists admit that new species appear.   As you see, most even accept new genera and families.

To bad you have no link to show what MOST YE Christians admit.  You really look foolish and disingenious when you post comments you can't support.

From Answers in Genesis:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

Again you fail to give a link that can b e checked.  I have already  addressed that comment.  You didn't understand the Bible well enough to understand my explanation.  So doing it again will not help you.

 

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

[The Barbarian]

27 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I did not add any words.  I gave you an example of "after their kind" that is proved thousands of times every day by observation and is repeated, and you can't falsify it.   It was so simple for anyone who understands English.

There's a difference between creating things according to their kind, and the non-scriptural belief of "reproduce according to kind."   C'mon.   Let it be God's way, without your addition.

(Barbarian shows the two largest YE creationist groups admit the fact of speciation)

Even most YE creationists admit that new species appear.   As you see, most even accept new genera and families.

30 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

To bad you have no link to show what MOST YE Christians admit.  You really look foolish and disingenious when you post comments you can't support.

See above.  No point in denial. 

From Answers in Genesis:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

31 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Again you fail to give a link that can b e checked. 

Already gave you one earlier.  Did you think I'd lost it?   Here you go:

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

You don't seem to understand creationism any better than you understand mainline Christianity.

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

That's not what it says.   It's your addition to His word to make it more acceptable to you.

I did not add anything.  I gave you a simple example of "after their kind," that even a cave man can understand.  It might help you to hang out with some cave men who have a high 2 digit IQ.

 Even most YE creationists admit that new species appear.   As you see, most even accept new genera and families.

As usual you just make up something you want to be true but NEVER  provide any supporting evidence.  That is disingenuous.

From Answers in Genesis:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today.

The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging. 

From the Institute for Creation Research:

There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described, and recently it has been estimated that 10 percent of all animal species still hybridize (mate with other species, producing fertile offspring) in the wild, and even more when brought into contact with each other in captivity. This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended.

yawn.  Are you ever going to post a like for what you invent?

https://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/

How do they justify this?   They just say "it's not real evolution."   

If you could ever understand real science, you would know they are right.

But remember, biological evolution has a very precise meaning.    "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time."   So they've tried to escape the inevitable by using their own definition of "evolution." 

I keep telling you definitions are not evidence.  Some man made up the definition you want to use, bu t it is not correct, because it can't be proved.  In fact real science refutes that definition.

When I tell you that God says the Earth brought forth living things, that's not the same as saying that the Earth has genes.   You're so tied up in your new doctrines that it won't let you accept His word as it is.

You dont even understand you own comments. Life must have genes and DNA and some other elements in some kinds of life.  NOTHING  necessary for life is  in  dust.  Therefor it can't cause life in any form.  Therefor life from the earth needs a helping hand to get the necessary elements to cause life.    This of course this came from God creating this life ex nihlo.

Now to try and help you understand slime.  First, the word for "dust" does not mean slime in Hebrew.    That Bible is a Catholic Bible and it was translated when the scholars did not have a good understanding of Hebrews

  Second the Catholic made a new translation(The American Standard Bible), in 1970.  In that version they changed "slime" to dust.

I can help you with many of your misunderstanding, and lack of complete preparation if you want me to.

Love, peace, joy