Jump to content
IGNORED

'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' are inherently NOT disciplines


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.44
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

5 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So even laymen see the evidence as conclusive.

That is called brainwashing and Propaganda. Those in the sciences know evolution is a dead theory, and it died when DNA was discovered. 

And Just because most scientists believe in evolution despite it being defunct shows how poorly science operates, Under and agenda t0o push a certain worldview, rather than a pure pursuit of Knowledge and Truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

32 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

That is called brainwashing and Propaganda. Those in the sciences know evolution is a dead theory, and it died when DNA was discovered. 

I'm a biologist.   And almost all biologists accept evolutionary theory.   Since evolution is directly observed in nature, there's no point in denying it.   Often creationist mistake thing like natural selection (an agency of evolution) or common descent (a consequence of evolution) for the phenomenon itself.   Evolution is defined in science, as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Which is directly observed.   So is natural selection, which even creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis accept.   And they also accept a limited amount of common descent, although they draw the line at common descent of all organisms on Earth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

38 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

and it died when DNA was discovered. 

Actually, the discovery of the mechanism of inheritance cleared up a difficult problem for Darwin's theory.    You see, if heredity was like mixing paint (as scientists in his time thought) then it's difficult to see how a new trait would not be obscured like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.   But when it became clear that heredity is more like sorting beads than mixing paint, his theory was again confirmed.

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.44
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, the discovery of the mechanism of inheritance cleared up a difficult problem for Darwin's theory.    You see, if heredity was like mixing paint (as scientists in his time thought) then it's difficult to see how a new trait would not be obscured like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.   But when it became clear that heredity is more like sorting beads than mixing paint, his theory was again confirmed.

DNA is NOT like paint. DNA is information encoded. You can't just throw paint onto your computer and expect it to form a picture... that is how silly this comparison is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Barbarian observes:

Actually, the discovery of the mechanism of inheritance cleared up a difficult problem for Darwin's theory.    You see, if heredity was like mixing paint (as scientists in his time thought) then it's difficult to see how a new trait would not be obscured like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.   But when it became clear that heredity is more like sorting beads than mixing paint, his theory was again confirmed.

33 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

DNA is NOT like paint.

That's what I just told you.   It's like sorting beads, not like mixing paint.   Because it's like sorting beads, it explains why Darwin's theory accurately describes what evolution does.  Until scientists realized the way genetics works, Darwin's theory had a big problem.   Then it became clear why it does.   I highlighted the part you missed.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/22/2019 at 6:03 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus.[/quote]

You're thinking of Martin Luther:

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth [Joshua 10:10–15].

Martin Luther, Table Talk

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/20/2019 at 3:41 PM, Tampered With said:

Your preface is the exact reason I gave my Biology professor for not majoring in Biology when I had a 100 average in her courses and understood Genetics better than her Grad. students according to her. I could not bear the prejudice so prevalent in the field of study.

Great! It would be a treat to converse with someone that knows a lot of Genetics. What do you make of the evidence for a chromosomal fusion that hypothetically led to the formation of human chromosome 2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

32 minutes ago, Tampered With said:

Now anymore verbal gymnastics?

Sorry, I assumed you knew a lot of Genetics since you understood it better than graduate students in Biology. It wasn't a "gotcha", it was a faulty assumption. Easy on the accusations, friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,983
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   958
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

Evolutionists for non­scientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

 

Actually, most scientists are theists.    Darwin correctly pointed out that evolution is consistent with the fact of God.  How could it be otherwise?    While some people may have rejected scripture, more of them simply have modified it into a literal history to fit their expectations.

 

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  22
  • Topic Count:  194
  • Topics Per Day:  0.12
  • Content Count:  11,053
  • Content Per Day:  6.70
  • Reputation:   9,009
  • Days Won:  36
  • Joined:  09/12/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/09/1956

On 9/10/2019 at 9:53 AM, The Barbarian said:

I'm a biologist.   And almost all biologists accept evolutionary theory.   Since evolution is directly observed in nature, there's no point in denying it.   Often creationist mistake thing like natural selection (an agency of evolution) or common descent (a consequence of evolution) for the phenomenon itself.   Evolution is defined in science, as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Which is directly observed.   So is natural selection, which even creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis accept.   And they also accept a limited amount of common descent, although they draw the line at common descent of all organisms on Earth.

 

How do you discuss novel 'body plans'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...