God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

42 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

If Encode is right, Then the evolution between Ape and Human is Impossible.

I will be happy to discuss the ENCODE project with you, if/when you decide to be honest about the ridiculous "Darwin Conspiracy" claim about why Ohno proposed "junk DNA". I am done showing you why this claim is a complete lie. Decide for yourself. The ball is in your court. 

[The Barbarian]

40 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I will be happy to discuss the ENCODE project with you, if/when you decide to be honest about the ridiculous "Darwin Conspiracy" claim about why Ohno proposed "junk DNA". I am done showing you why this claim is a complete lie. Decide for yourself. The ball is in your court. 

The fact that Ohno put quote marks around "Junk" should have been a tip-off to anyone who was interested in the truth.

 

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The fact that Ohno put quote marks around "Junk" should have been a tip-off to anyone who was interested in the truth.

I try hard to view YEC arguments in the best possible light, but these essays on "junk DNA" at the Darwin Conspiracy site liberally use flat-out lies. And apparently, these lies are easily believed by those that don't want to do the work needed to verify these claims.

Edited January 7, 2020 by one.opinion

[dhchristian]

10 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You have bought in so deeply to this lie that you believe it despite direct evidence to the contrary. You have presented exactly ZERO evidence that Ohno and others made up "junk DNA" because the chimp and human samples were so different. All you have are articles full of fabrications - and you choose to defend them. All I can say to that is "wow..."

From your perspective, that is the case, from mine the possibilities exist, and the "crime" has motive and will to exist as fact. You assume the scientific community is "Pure" which is a big mistake, as the Article about Larry Moran indicates is not true.... But rather it is a power struggle of dominating world views.

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

Fact 1 - Ohno first put the concept of "junk DNA" into print in 1972.

Fact 2 - Methods for sequencing DNA were not published until 1977.

Fact 3 - The whole genome comparison between chimp and human DNA was not official until publication of the chimp genome in 2005

Fact 4 - It is not possible to compare the similarity between human and chimp genomes without being able to sequence DNA and derive the whole genome sequence.

Yet It is true that in early 70's Scientists had gained the ability to perform rudimentary DNA tests in the early 1970's.  One of the first series of DNA tests they performed was directed at comparing the DNA of apes and humans.

I Know this to be true because I was a student in the 70's And By the Early 80's DNA testing was being considered for forensic science, And seeing as evolution is consumed with proving Ape to Human evolution, One of the first tests I am sure was this comparison. Now if the results were as they had hoped, this would have been all over the news, But it wasn't..... Think about that. Yes this is conjecture on my part, but an honest observation. I Do remember the 98-99% number being in my textbooks in the early 80's so this pushed upon the masses without full knowledge of the Genome, and thus a partial truth was pushed as fact to unwitting young minds in Public schools. This is no different than the German Propaganda of the 30's Pushed on the youth (the Hitler youth) Of which I am very familiar as one of my co workers when I was younger was a former Hitler Youth and we discussed this extensively, and My Father and Mother having lived through the wars in Europe. That is how Propaganda works.

33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Fact 5 - Ohno could not have made up the phony concept of "junk DNA" (because of low genome similarity between chimps and humans) in 1972 without genomes being published. This claim is so ridiculous because DNA sequencing methods HAD NOT EVEN BEEN INVENTED.

Not according to the link you published.

1972 is the year he made the term "junk DNA" No, it was not based the genome being published, but upon those "rudimentary tests" that He was doing at the time. Which makes your claim of a falsehood on my part proven wrong. The term Junk DNA was started in the early 1970's yet you wrote:

READ CAREFULLY - THE CONCEPT OF “JUNK DNA” PREDATES THE ABILITY TO COMPARE GENOMES BY 30 YEARS!  

Ohno and others were doing tests, and the results were not favorable to evolution even back then.

From the Link You provided:

Rather than being useless evolutionary debris, he says, the mysteriously repetitive but not identical strands of genetic material are in reality building instructions organized in a special type of pattern known as a fractal. It's this pattern of fractal instructions, he says, that tells genes what they must do in order to form living tissue, everything from the wings of a fly to the entire body of a full-grown human.

So this means the concept of Junk DNA is a false concept, based on "rudimentary" tests, that has survived to this day, because Atheist evolutionists Promote the concept because it gives credence to their claims, and so they have to bully those scientists who say otherwise as Larry Moran is doing, with threats and targeting. So Now the time comes to denounce the concept of "Junk DNA" (actually it should have been done in 2012), instead evolutionists are in a power struggle to maintain the concept, as You have shown yourself to be doing here. 

If the DNA is not Junk this evolution impossible, Because the dissimilarity of the whole genome between the ape and man, or the chimp and man is to great, whether that dissimilarity is 25%, Or 75%  or somewhere in between. Evolution becomes mathematically impossible. It is time for you to wake up to the fact that your worldview is being eroded by the facts, Just like my co worker who was A Hitler Youth had to face the facts of his deception at the hands of the powerful. This topic is just one of many cases where evolution has been proven false, and more are coming, Just like more allied soldiers and bombs decimated Germany and Hitler's Reich, to the point that he was exposed as a tyrant and not a savior. 

I Know you do not like hearing this from someone on the outside looking in, But I was on the inside till I woke up, and saw the Truth of what evolution really is. This came not from the study of the science, but from the study of the philosophy and sociology of Knowledge, which draws into question the methods and assumptions we all have, and this comes from the Word of God, which has given us a World view that is true, and can be trusted because it contains the Eyewitness evidence, the testimony of Jesus. This comes from someone who was in the "cult" of scientism, and came to see the TRUTH. Jesus is the truth.

From Wikipedia on Scientism:

More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". The term scientism has two senses:

1. The improper usage of science or scientific claims.^[8] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,^[9] such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
2. "The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",^[10] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"^[5] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".^[11][12] Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."^[13] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

Reviewing the references to scientism in the works of contemporary scholars, Gregory R. Peterson^[22] detected two main broad themes:

1. It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
2. It is used, often pejoratively,^[23][24][25] to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Well the Ball was bounced into my court, and I took it and ran with it, You probably do not like the fact that I ran towards the opposing net, But such is the way the ball bounces. 

Conclusion: from My end of the court. 

The theory of Evolution has had its time, and that time is coming to an end. It is in throws of scientism as we speak, and nothing more, A faith in the veracity that science is the Only avenue to Truth. The frustration of the scientism followers is evident in their dealings here on this site, as well as in the Public sphere. Using tactics such as berating, bullying and targeting those who are coming to diverse conclusions, in some cases scientifically as with Project ENCODE, and ID proponents, In other cases with those who come to those conclusions from the Word of God, Which contradict the theory of evolution. This frustration shows that this worldview is a religion to them and they are seeking "converts". And that is the Motive for why these sorts of People come to these sites, where they think they can manipulate and convert people to their way of Thinking. But some of us follow THE WAY, AND THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, And Believe in His Word, more than even their own eyes. for Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1)

These others will claim they "won" the debate, But from my perspective, they lost, as they did not gain a convert to their way of thinking. They only exposed the holes in their way of thinking, and that is a form of deism and Partial belief that one holds to if they make a compromise between the Word of God and Evolutionary science. They may disagree with this to their hearts content, But the truth is they are in denial of their doublethink, a term derived from George Orwell, describing a society that is consumed with believing the  fabricated story from those holding totalitarian power, whether true or Not. And that is the way they like to live..... "ignorance is strength" as Orwell puts it. 

 

 

[one.opinion]

46 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You assume the scientific community is "Pure" which is a big mistake

This is something I have never said nor implied.

I just think it is incredibly ironic that an author that you believe to be the side that honors God is using fabrications to build their case against evolution.

God is in no need of our lies to support Him.

46 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Yet It is true that in early 70's Scientists had gained the ability to perform rudimentary DNA tests in the early 1970's.  One of the first series of DNA tests they performed was directed at comparing the DNA of apes and humans.

There was no type of DNA test that could be used in 1972 that could be used to estimate the sequence similarity between genomes. Can you not think critically enough to wonder why these mysterious techniques were not mentioned? Or that your "Darwin Conspiracy" author presented no data?

You have fallen for a lie, yet defend it as the truth - with the only reason being that this person is on "your side" of the debate.

If you have evidence to the contrary, this would be a good time to present it. Evidence does not include unsupported assertions from another anonymous author.

 

52 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Ohno and others were doing tests, and the results were not favorable to evolution even back then.

Explain how the existence of repetitive DNA is unfavorable to evolution.

The rest of your post is unrelated to the lies that you refuse to acknowledge - which is where my frustration rests. Lying appears to be ok to you as long as the lie supports what you want it to support.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, dhchristian said:

I Know this to be true because I was a student in the 70's And By the Early 80's DNA testing was being considered for forensic science, And seeing as evolution is consumed with proving Ape to Human evolution, One of the first tests I am sure was this comparison

If you want some background history on PCR (invented in 1983) and why it is not a feasible explanation, let me know.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

The theory of Evolution has had its time, and that time is coming to an end.

Doesn't seem so.   In the last few decades, we've seen

• Dozens of transitional fossils predicted by evolutionary theory turn up.  
• Analysis of organic molecules found in a T. rex shows dinosaurs to be more closely related to birds than to other reptiles.
• Natural selection has been shown to be the cause of adaptive evolution.
• A majority of Americans (55%) believe humans evolved from other animals.
• About 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field don't accept evolutionary theory.  (not 3%, three-tenths of a percent; data shown on request)

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

These others will claim they "won" the debate,

Having majorities think so, would be one indication, yes.    Most Americans reject the deistic YE creationist beliefs of those who want to have "design" instead of a Creator.    The YE creationists who think evolution is in trouble, are those ignorant of the evidence, and those YE creationists who do know the facts, admit that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution.   Ignorance is the enemy.

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

"ignorance is strength" as Orwell puts it.

Not if you want to know the truth.   

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. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.

YE Creationist and scientist Dr. Todd Wood

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

God isn't neutral on this, BTW:

Know the truth, and the truth will set you free.   God is truth, and a Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

 

 

 

 

/

Edited January 8, 2020 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

On 1/6/2020 at 2:38 PM, one.opinion said:

I said from the beginning that I would provide evidence once you explained natural selection.

You did not say that from the beginning.  I said you couldn't, you said you would and when I ask you to, you added the requirement for me to explain natural selection.  That is moving the goal post.

I gave in a little and even tried to help you. But you refused to participate further in the discussion beyond repetitively asking for evidence prior to deciding what I am going to provide evidence FOR.

I refused to participate because you moved the goal post.

You are probably right here. But I suspect you would follow the same pattern you started when asking for evidence for evolution. You see, a real good example of "moving the goalposts" is demanding evidence for evolution, and then attempting to change the definition of evolution once the demanded evidence is provided. I'm not falling for that one from you again.

What you assumed is wrong. and if you would have responded , you would have seen that it was.  The subject was evidence for natural selection., not evolution. I have already shown many times there is nothing in the TOE, you can prove.

I assumed you were satisfied to drop it when you were silent for several days. I'm content to let it drop if you won't help the conversation.

I told you that I would not respond unless you did what you said you would do---provide the evidence for natural selection.

I am satisfied to discontinue this subject.  .  I have  made my point.  You said you would provide the evidence for natural selection and  it is evident you can't because there is none.

Love, peace, joy

 

[one.opinion]

28 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You did not say that from the beginning.

Let's look at the beginning of the "natural selection" conversation.

You (page 94): I am going to show you that you don't know what real scientific evidence is.   Show me the evidence that proves natural selection.  No  links.  If you want to cut and paste from a link,  fine.  They don;'t have any real evidence either.

Me: First, are you sure you want evidence for natural selection. In the past you have asked evidence for something and when I've provided it, you go back to "salamanders and still salamanders". Are you certain you want to see evidence for natural selection?

Second, you must realize that when you say things like "They don;'t have any real evidence either", it is pretty clear that you really are not interested in seeing evidence that I provide. Try looking at evidence with an open mind. Consider that scientists that work professionally every day with biology might just know more than you do.

You: You have only provided what you consider evidence.  I disagree that what you offer is not evidence.   Yes I want you to present the evidence for natural selection so I can show you why it is not really evidence.

Me: Alright, to avoid confusion after I present evidence for natural selection, let me make sure I am understanding you correctly. Are you stating that natural selection does not exist? Also, could you explain natural selection in your own words so we can see whether I can provide evidence for it?

Asking you to explain natural selection triggered some sort of defensive response from you... It seems likely that you don't understand what it is, and have no interest in learning about it, but want to make claims that it doesn't exist. This was your next response.

You: No.  You said there is evidence for natural selection.  If you do that, which you can't, I will answer your question.

It is apparent that you are not interested in having a productive conversation, you just want to prove something doesn't exist that I've shown you all major YEC organizations say exists.

42 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I refused to participate because you moved the goal post.

It is apparent that you don't want to participate because I asked  you to explain natural selection, not because I "moved the goal post".

43 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

What you assumed is wrong. and if you would have responded , you would have seen that it was.  The subject was evidence for natural selection., not evolution. I have already shown many times there is nothing in the TOE, you can prove.

I have shown you numerous times that you make claims that you do not understand and cannot support. I showed you quite clearly what evolution is and evidence for it.

44 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I told you that I would not respond unless you did what you said you would do---provide the evidence for natural selection.

That's fine with me. Either participate in a discussion about what natural selection is, and let me provide evidence for it, or don't. No big deal to me, either way.

45 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I am satisfied to discontinue this subject.  .  I have  made my point. 

Quite clearly your point is that you don't want to discuss natural selection or learn anything about it, you just want to make baseless claims that it doesn't exist.

47 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You said you would provide the evidence for natural selection and  it is evident you can't because there is none.

As I've repeatedly said, I will be happy to provide evidence once we can agree on what "natural selection" is. I provided a definition and asked if you agreed. You still refuse to discuss. The ball is in your court, sir. Either discuss it or stop harassing me about it.

[omega2xx]

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Let's look at the beginning of the "natural selection" conversation.

You (page 94): I am going to show you that you don't know what real scientific evidence is.   Show me the evidence that proves natural selection.  No  links.  If you want to cut and paste from a link,  fine.  They don;'t have any real evidence either.

Me: First, are you sure you want evidence for natural selection. In the past you have asked evidence for something and when I've provided it, you go back to "salamanders and still salamanders". Are you certain you want to see evidence for natural selection?

Second, you must realize that when you say things like "They don;'t have any real evidence either", it is pretty clear that you really are not interested in seeing evidence that I provide. Try looking at evidence with an open mind. Consider that scientists that work professionally every day with biology might just know more than you do.

You: You have only provided what you consider evidence.  I disagree that what you offer is not evidence.   Yes I want you to present the evidence for natural selection so I can show you why it is not really evidence.

Me: Alright, to avoid confusion after I present evidence for natural selection, let me make sure I am understanding you correctly. Are you stating that natural selection does not exist? Also, could you explain natural selection in your own words so we can see whether I can provide evidence for it?

Asking you to explain natural selection triggered some sort of defensive response from you... It seems likely that you don't understand what it is, and have no interest in learning about it, but want to make claims that it doesn't exist. This was your next response.

You: No.  You said there is evidence for natural selection.  If you do that, which you can't, I will answer your question.

It is apparent that you are not interested in having a productive conversation, you just want to prove something doesn't exist that I've shown you all major YEC organizations say exists.

It is apparent that you don't want to participate because I asked  you to explain natural selection, not because I "moved the goal post".

I have shown you numerous times that you make claims that you do not understand and cannot support. I showed you quite clearly what evolution is and evidence for it.

That's fine with me. Either participate in a discussion about what natural selection is, and let me provide evidence for it, or don't. No big deal to me, either way.

Quite clearly your point is that you don't want to discuss natural selection or learn anything about it, you just want to make baseless claims that it doesn't exist.

As I've repeatedly said, I will be happy to provide evidence once we can agree on what "natural selection" is. I provided a definition and asked if you agreed. You still refuse to discuss. The ball is in your court, sir. Either discuss it or stop harassing me about it.

It is  obvious that you can't offer any real evidence to support natural selection, so you had to move the goal post in order to try and hide your lack of knowledge on the subject.  If you gave a definition, I missed it, but definitions are not evidence.   I guess you consider asking, not demanding,  evidence is harassing, but don't tell me what to do.  If you say something I will always ask for the evidence.  Those who have it , or think they do will provide it without moving the goal post.

if you don't like the way I do things you have a solution.

IMO I have made  my point---you have no evidence supporting natural selection.    You would if you could, but YOU CAN'T. 

Love, peace, joy