The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Tim Robbins

Spyral wrote:

there is some evidence,

There's about a billion fossils, every single one of all consistent with evolution theory. I think that is a bit more than "some".
Also there's countless amount of mathematical analysis of DNA - again all consistent with slow gradual change.
After 150 or so years, there is absolute no objective evidence which negates the theory of evolution.

If you want to reck people's heads ask them were did DNA come from, I wouldn't bother arguing evolution theory there is way too much evidence for slow gradual change.

bonkey

Spyral wrote:

what im say is that its not been proved.

Science doesn't prove things. Everything in science is and must be falsifiable, thus cannot be proven.

The theory of gravity, for example, hasn't been proven. Do you think this is a good reason to not believe in it?

there is some evidence

Just as there is "some evidence" to support the theory of gravity.

but no conclusive proof

Can you clarify what would constitute conclusive proof to you? If not, then arguing that we don't have it doesn't make much sense.

Spyral

If you want to reck people's heads ask them were did DNA come from, I wouldn't bother arguing evolution theory there is way too much evidence for slow gradual change.

the thing with evolution is one cock up and it dies, things have to be spot on for it to work. Additionally why wouldn't everything evolve the same way, why sould some be left behind and not evolve. Things like that.

Its still inconsistent. People only belive it as there is little evidence to support anything else scientific. Like I said I dont buy the creationism pseudo science but I woudlnt make a conviction on the evidence available for evolution either.

Zombrex

Spyral wrote:

the thing with evolution is one cock up and it dies, things have to be spot on for it to work.

Which is why it takes a VERY LONG TIME for it to do anything

It took approximately 1.5 billion years for early life to get to the state of simple multi-celled organisms. It took another 2 billion years from that to get to humans.

This is with trillions of life forms replication (reproducing) every minute.

I think part of the problem people have with evolution is the difficulty in fathoming how long we are actually talking about here. Mixing the time scale of a single bacteria that might multiple once every 4 hours, coupled with the idea that there are trillions of these alive right now multiplying, coupled with a billion or so years, and we are talking about numbers that humans find almost impossible to comprehend.

Spyral wrote:

Additionally why wouldn't everything evolve the same way, why sould some be left behind and not evolve. Things like that.

This question is not only dealt with as part evolutionary model, the model in fact predicts that this will be the case.

Evolution is dependent on the environment to force it into action. Organisms that become very well adapted to their environment with little change in environment, tend not to evolve very much. This make sense, and if the opposite was true then there would be something wrong with the theory of Natural Selection.

An example would be the shark, or the crocodile. Evolution has got these animals to a point were they do what they do very well, and the environment they find themselves in doesn't change much from century to century so they simply keep doing what they do very well. Mutation tends not to add very much useful new features because these animals are already very good at adapting. That is not to say that evolution has stopped, simply that it is not working at nearly as fast a pace as in other environments.

On the other hand, humans evolved quite quickly because of the rapidly (in Earth's time frame) changing environment that humans found themselves in. This created an system where every mutation was evaluated to see if it provided an advantage, and these advantages could be significant.

Spyral wrote:

People only belive it as there is little evidence to support anything else scientific.

Well there is no other competing scientific theory.

interestinguser

Spyral wrote:

the thing with evolution is one cock up and it dies, things have to be spot on for it to work. Additionally why wouldn't everything evolve the same way, why sould some be left behind and not evolve. Things like that.

Its still inconsistent. People only belive it as there is little evidence to support anything else scientific. Like I said I dont buy the creationism pseudo science but I woudlnt make a conviction on the evidence available for evolution either.

Dude seriously, do a bit more reading on the subject before posting. I've been following this thread on and off for a fair while, and I've seen numerous people come on and make the very similar comments. Evolution seems to be one of only a few scientific theories that people seem happy to start questions without having any real knowledge of it to start with.

robindch

Spyral wrote:

why sould some be left behind and not evolve.

Because it's evolved to the point that further evolution doesn't confer any advantage. Look up "selection pressure" on google.

You can find answers to all of your questions here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Tim Robbins

Spyral wrote:

the thing with evolution is one cock up and it dies, things have to be spot on for it to work.

At least 98% of species are extint.

Additionally why wouldn't everything evolve the same way, why sould some be left behind and not evolve. Things like that.

?
Mutations are entirely random. The selection of the best mutations is non random.

Its still inconsistent. People only belive it as there is little evidence to support anything else scientific. Like I said I dont buy the creationism pseudo science but I woudlnt make a conviction on the evidence available for evolution either.

People accept it as there is absolute tonnes of evidence to support it and nothing which falsifies it.
One billion fossils are consistent with slow gradual change.

DerKaiser

A theory has to be dis-proved, not proved, if you have a counter-theory, we'd love to hear it, we won't burn you for it

Spyral

I dont have counter theory I'm just not in favour of either creationism or evolution. None of them are a perfect answer

DerKaiser

How can you have the perfect answer to the universe and everything in it? For me personally evolution makes the most sense, you see it everywhere in nature, creatures adapt to their environments out of neccesity and over long periods breeding includes an automatic set of instructions and equipment for dealing with that environment, life knows how to survive and adapt, that for me makes perfect sense, creationism and intelligent design for me are convenient excuses to include God in the dialogue, it's very easy to suggest God is responsible for everything, but it doesn't really explain anything, Darwin at least makes a logical argument for evolution and there is enough evidence in the world to suggest he hit the nail on the head

bonkey

Spyral wrote:

None of them are a perfect answer

What is a "perfect answer" and what does it have to do with science?

Science doesn't have a perfect answer to anything, just as it doesn't prove anything.

Ultimately, what you're suggesting is that while you don't really believe in evolution, its because you don't really know that much about it, nor about the finer points of what science is in the first place.

Thats fine. No problem. No objection from me whatsoever.

Just as long as you recognise that your rejection of evolution is non-scientific in nature.

Tim Robbins

Spyral wrote:

I dont have counter theory I'm just not in favour of either creationism or evolution. None of them are a perfect answer

Do you just think that 1,000,000,000 fossils are just a coincidence that they indicate slow gradual change then?
Or do you think we should have found another billion or something?

Zombrex

Spyral wrote:

I dont have counter theory I'm just not in favour of either creationism or evolution. None of them are a perfect answer

As bonkey points out having a perfect answer isn't really the point.

The point of science is to construct models that match what we observe so that we can then use these models for useful things, such as medicine or building computers, or flying planes.

The scientific theory/model of evolution is pretty close to what is actually happening. We know this because the model's output matches observed facts. It obviously doesn't model exactly what happens in the natural world, no scientific model does, and there are still gaps and holes in the model. But it works well enough for us to use the model to do pretty useful things, such as modern medicine.

Spyral

they just show different life forms some of which are similar. if someone in 100000000 years time finds a fossil of me and an ape wont it be the same.

Zombrex

Spyral wrote:

they just show different life forms some of which are similar. if someone in 100000000 years time finds a fossil of me and an ape wont it be the same.

That is because you aren't the same. You are in fact different species.

But you and a human from 25,000 years ago will be quite similar, but also slightly different. That is because you have evolved, if only slightly, from what that human used to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

As humans have generational cycles in the decades it is very difficult to actually see evolution taking place in ones life time when it comes to humans.

If you want to see evolution actually happening you need to look at a form of life that replicates itself much much more often than humans, such as bacteria.

I'm sure you have heard about the panic over these "super-bugs" that are appearing in hospitals and places like that, bugs that are resistant to antibiotics. These bacteria have become resistant because of evolution.

In any population of life form there exists various random mutations. Each human has on average 60 mutations from their parents original DNA. Most of the time mutations do nothing useful. But sometimes they do something useful.

What happens with resistant bacteria is that an antibiotic kills off all the bacteria except for a tiny handful that have, by chance, a mutation that makes them resistant to the antibiotic. Now if the antibiotic had never come along this mutation would not be doing anything useful, and therefore these mutated bacteria would have no better advantage of non-mutated bacteria.

But introduce the antibiotic and this resistance gives the mutated bacteria a clear advantage over the others. After all the other non-mutated bacteria have been killed off these mutated bacteria are free to spread. The entire population now becomes this mutated version of the bacteria. The old non-mutated bacteria becomes extinct because it cannot survive in its changed environment.

That is natural selection at work, the environment has "selected" these mutated bacteria to survive and prosper, because all the others were killed off due to the antibiotics.

I should add that in reality it is often much more complex than this, with different mutations acting together, with a lot of stop-start again stuff going on. Which is good because otherwise these bacteria would evolve very quickly and we would probably all be dead.

Tim Robbins

Spyral wrote:

they just show different life forms some of which are similar. if someone in 100000000 years time finds a fossil of me and an ape wont it be the same.

No not they are not the same.
They date the fossils to see if they fit in with accepted lineages of life forms that are changing slowly. Every single fossil every found does.
If a fossil of a species say a rabbit was found at a time, that could not be placed in a lineage consistent with slow gradual change the theory would fall apart.
Do you accept the above?

Sapien

Spyral wrote:

I dont have counter theory I'm just not in favour of either creationism or evolution. None of them are a perfect answer

A perfect answer, in science, is one that explains what is observed more simply than any other answer. Evolution is, at present, the perfect answer.

Son Goku

Spyral wrote:

the thing with evolution is one cock up and it dies, things have to be spot on for it to work. Additionally why wouldn't everything evolve the same way, why sould some be left behind and not evolve. Things like that.

Its still inconsistent. People only belive it as there is little evidence to support anything else scientific. Like I said I dont buy the creationism pseudo science but I woudlnt make a conviction on the evidence available for evolution either.

they just show different life forms some of which are similar. if someone in 100000000 years time finds a fossil of me and an ape wont it be the same.

Sorry man, but what you're failing to understand is that answers and explanations don't have to make any sense to you in order for them to be correct. You also have no appreciation of the technology and level of evidence involved.
As somebody else said, go and read.
It's accepted because it is correct, what do you think all those journals are for?

If you think evolution is incorrect answer me this simple question:
Why is so much of the Y chromosome junk DNA?

Spyral

No I only studing a BSc forensics.. I dont appreciate technology ..

and the parts of evolution i dont agree with are single cell = fish = apes =humans thing. I agree with MRSA though

that's all Im saying. science cannot provide 100% irrefutable proof.

Additionally I dont give a toss anyway. the only thing that irritates me is creationist muppets forcing their skewed view of the world on people.

You Evolutionists arent as bad though, at least you offer some support.

bonkey

Spyral wrote:

No I only studing a BSc forensics..

Then you should know that science does not and cannot provide 100% irrefutable proof about anything.

that's all Im saying. science cannot provide 100% irrefutable proof.

But what's yoru point? It doesn't provide that about anything.

You're studying forensics. Will you accept someone disregarding the best forensic evidence in the world on the grounds that its not 100% irrefutable proof? Because it never will be.

I'm pretty sure that if - as the forensics expert you will hopefully become - that particular challenge is ever made to your findings, you won't accept it as being valid.

Similarly, if someone says that your interpretation is only accepted because there isn't a better scientific model, you'll also not accept it.

But thats ok. You'll have picked up tips here from the "evolutionists" about how to point out that the challenge being levelled against your findings is meaningless.

Son Goku

Spyral wrote:

No I only studing a BSc forensics.. I dont appreciate technology ..

There are over 10,000 BSc students at any one time in Ireland alone, that doesn't mean anything.

Spyral wrote:

that's all Im saying. science cannot provide 100% irrefutable proof.

Although that sounds nontrivial at first it isn't a very meaningful thing to say. Or more accurately it isn't meaningful the way it is usually applied. For instance there is no 100% irrefutable proof that the Cliffs of Moher are actually made of rock.
Would you have doubts that the cliffs of Moher are made of rock?

Spyral wrote:

You Evolutionists arent as bad though, at least you offer some support.

Some? It is completely proven. (To non-ontology standards)

Spyral

it would depend what you classify as rock and then what results you get when you test it.

J C

Johnny72
creationism, (is) technically and legally not a science……

Creation Scientists are ALL conventionally qualified scientists who pursue the study of the evidence for Creation using conventional scientific materials and methods…..

…..so Creation Scientists are BOTH technically and legally entitled to claim scientific validity for their work!!!!:D


Johnny72
I forgot my eternally happy love of god christian smiley face

…..and I never forget to use two Christian love smileys where atheists would only use ONE - or often none at alll!!!!:D


Johnny72
when I argue or debate something I feel passionately about I just feel sooo happy and full of joy

…..that makes two of us then, Johnny!!!


Johnny72
I would like to point out I am currently patching a few holes in the theory of how everything was created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster

Did you know that ‘The Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory’ is a good approximation of the ‘Theory of Evolution’………
……………. because they are BOTH a confused pile of assorted, often contradictory ideas that are hopelessly and irretrievably MIXED UP and gone ‘haywire’!!!!:eek:

………and BTW you will need to do more than just ‘patch a few holes’ in the rapidly crumbling edifice of Evolution……..
…..you will need to knock it down and start all over again ……
……….and this time lay a proper foundation based on Creation Science!!!!:)


Johnny72
unfortunately that million year old human tooth discovery really is turning into a big thorn in my side, I need to figure out a way to disregard carbon dating

Firstly, Radiocarbon dating cannot, even theoretically, ‘date’ organic material in excess of about 50,000 years – which is considerably ‘younger’ than the age of that supposed million year old tooth that you have in your side!!!!!

Secondly, the last time that an Evolutionist started shouting that he had discovered a million year old Nebraska Man’s tooth……

…..it turned out to actually be a couple of thousand years old pig’s tooth upon closer examination!!!!!:)


Son Goku

Eh,... do you know what silica glass is?

……Eh, yes…… it is AKA ‘glass’!!!!

……your question is indeed profound, Son!!!


Johnny72
Question: How would you explain that scientists are now proposing that Mars once contained a wetter climate?
(The scientific answer would be very long, complicated, and easy to pick holes in)

My answer: The great gravy flood didn't only affect Earth, it affected other planets too, like Mars.

….so that is why Evolutionists believe that Mars was once inundated by a catastrophic flood but Noah’s Flood didn’t occurr on Earth……

…..even though there is hardly a bucket of water on Mars and the Earth has sufficient water to drown the entire planet to an average depth of 1.7 miles!!!!


Johnny72
There you have it.. my answer is easier to understand, more straightforward and harder to pick holes in.

The Evolutionist’s answers may be easy to understand ………

……..but there is a VERY BIG HOLE in their argument…….
……when they deny Noah’s Flood AND loudly proclaim the “Flood of Mars”!!!!!


Johnny72
I can of course (like a politician) adjust my 'theories', sorry, 'scientific theories' to adapt to any challenges that arise from real science. If I make a mistake that leads me down a dead end, then one of my colleagues, of which there are many, will certainly come up with a semi-good argument/rebuke/retort
…..and the following quote from Wicknights confirms HOW Evolutionists do this….

…….They (Evolutionists) can certain discover something and go "How the hell do we explain this within an evolutionary framework". They either figure out a way to do so, and test this idea and say that they understand how evolution could produce this. Or they don't and it is filed under "we don't know" to come back to at a later date.


Johnny72
Now some people would have a problem believing this crazzzy fantastical idea that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, and I don't blame them, it does sound pretty whacky, but consider this, I have a friend who goes bowling alot and he has a 'lucky' top that he wears everytime he goes to the bowling alley. This guy actually really believes this jumper is some kind of magical jumper that gives him luck at bowling, how crazy is that?

I ALSO don’t blame people for not believing in The Flying Spaghetti Monster – AKA The Flying Theory of Evolution!!!


Johnny72
yet so many of us attach these strange magical properties to objects and even stranger is the fact that we actually believe in these magical properties!
Yes indeed, Evolutionists DO believe in the ‘magical properties’ of Muck…..

….and it's supposed spontaneous ability to morph into Man!!!!:D


Johnny72
Even the most cynical and intelligent of us can have a totally superstitious, nonsense-believing side

If you are an Evolutionist who believes that your 3 billion base pair genome was SPONTANEOUSLY generated by mutating Muck ….
…….you certainly DO “have a totally superstitious, NONSENSE-believing side”!!!!


Johnny72
if people buy my story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating everything, hand it down to their kids, and they hand it down to their kids, and so on down the generations, then it will become ingrained in them, it will become real to them, and they will use all their intelligence to defend this 'scientific theory'... and so it will begin

.....and that is EXACTLY how the unfounded belief in Evolution HAS been propagated!!!


2 Scoops
Frankly, the evolution aspect of this 'debate' has concluded

…..and without ANY evidence being provided for Evolution…..

…so, I’ll take that as conceding the debate!!!:D


Originally Posted by JC
.......anyway, Creation Science DOESN'T say that God put Dinosaur fossils there "to test our faith". Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED Mammals and they were on Earth within the last few thousand years - a fact borne out by the discovery of intact soft tissue present in the partially fossilised remains of a T Rex which was recently unearthed!!!

The only faith being tested by Dinousaur fossils is the Evolutionist belief that Dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and that they were all REPTILES (because Mammals supposedly hadn't 'evolved' yet)!!!!!

DerKaiser
I've never heard this before, where is your proof? As far a s I'm aware, and I'm not a palaeontologist, the last studies on T-Rexs show them to have all the hallmarks of a reptillian species that lived 75 million years ago, this is the universal idea of the T-Rex,

T. Rex was probably a reptile but the large Sauropod Dinosaurs were QUADRUPEDS with HAIR follicles on their skin, as well as being endothermic!!!!

Candidates for warm-blooded, quadrupedal, hairy, mammalian status include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose – which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros). Other mammalian candidates include the Stegosaurus (which looked like a big Armadillo) and the Brachiosaurus (which had the general body physique of an Elephant - but with a longer tail and neck).

We are now pretty certain that the LARGEST land MAMMALS that EVER lived were in fact, “Dinosaurs”!!!!!

The reason why Evolutionists ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based on their OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold- blooded creatures. They therefore logically concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent geological times due to the extra time required for all of the physiological and temperature control systems to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the ‘Evolution of Man’ – if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!!


DerKaiser
what about crocodiles, the ancestors of which came from a lot futher back, they evolved into the finished article today,

The supposed 300 million year old Crocodile fossils that look EXACTLY like the Crocodile down the road in the local Zoo, are most certainly a very BIG problem for the theory of ‘Gradual Evolution’.

Evolutionists would have us believe that while ‘miraculous’ Macro-Evolutionary processes were ‘evolving’ Humans from something that looked like a Rat, over the last 100 million years……..
………. these same processes left the Crocodile COMPLETELY UNCHANGED for over 300 million years!!!!

What unbelievable CHANGE in the case of the Human …….
……and what equally unbelievable LACK OF CHANGE, in the case of the Crocodile!!!!

On the other hand, Creation Science postulates no significant change in EITHER the Human or the Crocodile, in the approximately 7,000 years since they were BOTH Created!!!!


DerKaiser
studies on T-Rexs show them to have all the hallmarks of a reptillian species that lived 75 million years ago, this is the universal idea of the T-Rex
Have a look here for evidence of T Rex being alive in the last few thousand years!!

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/606
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2491


DerKaiser
but what does creationist science say about birds, where did they come from, or do you agree, like I do with the Darwinists that they are feathered reptiles after millions of years of evolution?

The Sauropod Dinosaurs were QUADRUPEDS with HAIR follicles on their skin …..
……..Have you seen any Birds recently with four legs and a hairy chest????

Birds have a unique one-way respiratory system that bears no resemblance to either reptiles or mammals…….and Evolutionists actually disagree with each other over how Birds THEORETICALLY arose…..

Some Evolutionists believe that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from dinosaurs that flew-off by taking a running jump at themselves (the so-called Cursorial Theory…..

….while another group of Evolutionists believe that birds evolved ‘trees down’ from dinosaurs that flew-off by throwing themselves off trees and hoping for the best (the so-called Arboreal Theory)…..

Both sides are WRONG and birds were actually created.


DerKaiser
My brain tells me I'm right, your faith tells you you're right

BOTH my brain (as a Creation Scientist) and my faith (as a Christian) CONFIRM that we were all Created by a loving God.

BTW how can you rely on YOUR brain to reliably tell you ANYTHING – when you believe your brain to be the result of random, arbitrary Evolutionary forces???

Could I also suggest that your belief in Evolution can only be held through faith alone …..
……because there is no objective evidence for Evolution!!!


DerKaiser
That's a no-brainer.

Evolution certainly IS a no-brainer!!!!

J C

pH
I've been over this at some length with J C before.

His 'proof' it turns out is :……

Thanks for the ‘dig out’ pH……..

…….great to see the logic of Creation Science having SOME effect on an Evolutionist….:D


Spyral
I’m a catholic and I don’t believe in Evolution per se.

second creationism is whack. not by definition, I believe that God create the world/univerese whatever but not in the literal six days.

OK ……so you’re an Old Earth Creationist then………

……so HOW LONG did God take to create the Universe and all life?

…….has He been ‘popping in’ arbitrarily for the past 4 billion years do ‘a little creating here and a little evolving there’???

When did God last ‘pop in’ to do some creating?

How does God’s ‘popping in to create’ manifest itself?

What does the terms “the evening and the morning” mean in the following passages of scripture :-

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. and the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:8 And god called the firmament heaven. and the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day

Why do you believe that God didn’t Create everything in six days - was it was all ‘too much for Him’?

What do you think the following passage of scripture means :-

Ex 20:8-11 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”


Acid Voilet
I like you JC, your hilarious opinions really brighten up my day…..

…….I like you too……..

…..because you’re worth it !!!…..

……but just when I really thought that you liked me..... you go and spoil it all……


Acid Voilet
I was saying to Wicknight not to waste his time talking to you (J C) because you're not worth it.

……you’re so fickle, Acid Voilet:D

……but Jesus still loves you and wants to save you nonetheless!!!:)


PH
(J C) Mislead us about who's doing this work
Creation Science has established that several Dinosaurs were WARM BLOODED

Could I gently remind you that Evolutionists DON’T have a monopoly on the study of Dinosaur fossils!!!
There are Creation Scientists who are conventionally qualified Palaeontologists as well !!!!

Sangre
Gravity is also JUST a theory but I doubt you're going to jump off a building anytime soon.

Evolution is JUST a HYPOTHESIS that billions of mutations acting on muck created Mankind – but I don’t see any Evolutionists (who believe in the magical powers of mutagenesis) queuing to 'improve' themselves via mutagenesis!!!!!

……..the X-ray machine awaits the first eager volunteers!!!!:D


Wicknight
"Then it had butt sex with a squirrel"

yup, that sounds like JC's understanding of Neo-Darwin Biological Evolution

It ACTUALLY sounds like whatever ‘IT’ was, had reached a 'reproductive Cul de Sac'!!!……..in every sense of the word!!!:D

………..a bit like Evolution itself, actually!!!:D


Tim Robbins
there is absolute no objective evidence which negates the theory of evolution.

If you want to reck people's heads ask them were did DNA come from, I wouldn't bother arguing evolution theory there is way too much evidence for slow gradual change.

Creation Science ACCEPTS that gradual change via genetic drift and Natural Selection DOES occur (within Created Kinds and using pre-existing Genetic Information), thereby allowing populations of creatures to adapt to changes in the environment.

Creation Science ALSO accepts that rapid changes (sometimes leading to speciation) DOES occur (within Created Kinds and using pre-existing Genetic Information).

What Creation Science DOESN’T accept, is the unfounded belief that muck ‘lifted itself up by it’s own bootstraps’ via billions of mutations to create the enormous levels of COMPLEX TIGHTLY SPECIFIED INFORMATION that is found in the genomes of all living organisms!!

.....and BTW where did DNA come from????


Wicknight
Which is why it (Evolution) takes a VERY LONG TIME for it to do anything

Yes, Spontaneous Evolution would need TEN THOUSAND BILLION BILLION BILLION YEARS to generate a sequence for a specific simple protein!!!!


Tim Robbins
Do you just think that 1,000,000,000 fossils are just a coincidence that they indicate slow gradual change then?
Or do you think we should have found another billion or something?

We have certainly ENOUGH fossils unearthed to reach a conclusion in relation to the validity of ‘Gradual Evolution’ – and here are the views of leading EVOLUTIONISTS on the matter:-

Charles Darwin, ‘On the imperfection of the geological record’, Chapter x, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, , pp 292-293.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

Dr. David M Raup, former Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, ‘Conflicts between Darwin and palaeontology’ Field Musem of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50(1), pp 25.
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition that we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”

Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University, ‘Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology vol 6(1), pp127.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University. Evolution’s erratic pace’ Natural History, vol LXXXVI (5) pp 14.‘
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record.”


Prof George Gaylord Simpson Ph D. Late Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. ‘The Major Features of Evolution’ Columbia University Press, New York, pp 360
“It remains true, as every palaeontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families and nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

Truly devastating evidence AGAINST ‘Gradual Evolution’ – and confirmed by the some of top EVOLUTIONISTS that have ever lived!!!!


Wicknight
I'm sure you have heard about the panic over these "super-bugs" that are appearing in hospitals and places like that, bugs that are resistant to antibiotics. These bacteria have become resistant because of evolution.

In general, populations of these bugs have become resistant to antibiotics because pre-existing genetic information confers such resistance………
……and one proof that pre-existing genetic information provides the resistance is the fact that antibiotic resistant bacteria have been isolated from ice cores that are thousands of years old (or millions of years old if you are an Evolutionist)……..

…..and obviously these resistant bugs have never been exposed to modern antibiotics previously so they have PRE-EXISTING resistance and therefore PRE-EXISTING genetic information providing this resistance!!!!:D


Tim Robbins
If a fossil of a species say a rabbit was found at a time, that could not be placed in a lineage consistent with slow gradual change the theory would fall apart.

Such ‘inconsistencies’ are OFTEN found …….and they are simply ignored.:D

Examples include finding Human tools WITHIN supposed 500 million year old coal seams and fossilised Human footprints ALONGSIDE fossilised Dinosaur footprints in the same rock!!!!:eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

OK ……so you’re an Old Earth Creationist then………

……so HOW LONG did God take to create the Universe and all life?

…….has He been ‘popping in’ arbitrarily for the past 4 billion years do ‘a little creating here and a little evolving there’???

When did God ‘pop in’ to last do some creating?

How does God’s ‘popping in to create’ manifest itself?

What does the terms “the evening and the morning” mean in the following passages of scripture :-

Why do you believe that God didn’t Create everything in six days - was it was all ‘too much for Him’?

What do you think the following passage of scripture means :-

Wow, its like watching JC's brain do a divide by zero.

Could it be that devout JC doesn't like the idea that another Christian would disagree with his "science" and correctly identify it as nonsense. And he isn't even an evolutionists, yet he still sees Creationism for what it is, rubbish.

J C wrote:

Could I gently remind you that Evolutionists DON’T have a monopoly on the study of Dinosaur fossils!!!

Creationists don't study fossils, they make them up and then refuse to let any scientists near them .. I wonder why :rolleyes:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1026163&item_no=329

J C wrote:

There are Creation Scientists who are conventionally qualified Palaeontologists as well !!!!

There are?

J C wrote:

Creation Science ACCEPTS that gradual change via genetic drift and Natural Selection DOES occur (within Created Kinds and using pre-existing Genetic Information), thereby allowing populations of creatures to adapt to changes in the environment.

True, but you guys think this takes place in the time frame of decades, rather than hundreds of thousands of years like Evolutionary Biologists.

How many "kinds" were on the ark again JC??? :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Yes, Spontaneous Evolution would need TEN THOUSAND BILLION BILLION BILLION YEARS to generate a sequence for a specific simple protein!!!!

LOL .. do you even get the irony of putting the word "spontaneous" and "ten thousand billion billion billion years" together in the same sentence

You sir are an idiot.

J C wrote:

In general, populations of these bugs have become resistant to antibiotics because pre-existing genetic information confers such resistance………

Again, you are an idiot. If the genetic information was PRE-EXISTING then the bugs would already be resistant to the antibiotics.

The fact that you can put 100 non-resistant bugs in a test tube, wait a couple of generations and end up with ones that are resistant tells us that this resistance was not PRE-EXISTING. It is a result of mutation of the genetic information.

Spyral

Wicknight wrote:

Again, you are an idiot. If the genetic information was PRE-EXISTING then the bugs would already be resistant to the antibiotics.

The fact that you can put 100 non-resistant bugs in a test tube, wait a couple of generations and end up with ones that are resistant tells us that this resistance was not PRE-EXISTING. It is a result of mutation of the genetic information.

ROFL-waffles AND LOLicopter to that. I think a 3 year olds logic could see that MRSA has evolved. Also our increasing resistance to various types of antibiotics does make science side with you on this one.

……so HOW LONG did God take to create the Universe and all life?

you're making the mistake of thinking that I actually care

What does the terms “the evening and the morning” mean in the following passages of scripture :-

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. and the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:8 And god called the firmament heaven. and the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day

Why do you believe that God didn’t Create everything in six days - was it was all ‘too much for Him’?

you are taking it literally. Nothing says that I have to take it literally.

JimiTime

Question to JC Hi JC, I am a christian with a genuine question. What would be the spiritual consequence of evolution being true, if God used it as his means of creation? I have no opinion on this as yet, its just that you seem so adament that it has to be 6 literal days, I'm just wondering of its importance. Again I ask this in the context that I believe god created us.

jonny72

Fair dos to JC for replying to alot of the stuff..

First off, its actually not a science..

From wikipedia..
"The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such."[38] and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."[38] According to Skeptic Magazine, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."[39]

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* consistent (internally and externally)
* parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
* useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
* empirically testable and falsifiable
* based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
* correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
* progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
* tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.[40] Most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.[41]

A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists follows:

* Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. Thus, creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God are a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability below.)
* Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. Parsimony favours explanations that make the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.
* Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.
* Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.
* Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

Creation science's lack of adherence to the standards of the scientific method mean that it (and specifically creation science) cannot be said to be scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined by the leading world science organisations. Creation science has been described as an oxymoron by Stephen Jay Gould.[42] For more discussion, see creation-evolution controversy."

How on earth is creationism scientific?? Its a theory, nothing else.
Here is the theory in layman's terms; there was a book written by human beings 2000 years ago which claimed that an almighty being created the universe and everything in it roughly 6000 years ago.

Thats the theory. Creationists just HIJACK science to discredit any theories that might go against this. Very strange how they don't seem to have a single problem with any scientific theories that don't contradict their theory.

Scientologists are brainwashed to believe that psychiatry is the root of all evil, I mean I've seen Tom Cruise on TV go all spluttery going on about the evils of psychiatry, he utterly believes in what he is saying.. and so do nearly all Scientologists..

He HAS TO believe it, he has evidence, books, articles, theories, they've even HIJACKED the holocaust to portray that psychiatry created Hitler..

This is the power of religion..

bonkey

jonny72 wrote:

How on earth is creationism scientific?? Its a theory, nothing else.

Its made out to be scientific by leveraging the inherent "blurriness" of language.

For example...you use "theory" here in the "just an idea" sense. However, a creationist will spring on this and say that you've accepted that its a theory, and theories are what science is all about, therefore its scientific.

You know....a bit like the old classic...

Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Ergo...a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

This is comparable with what creationists try to pass off as logic, although I admit it needs embellishment with several smilies for proper effect.

Tim Robbins

J C wrote:

Tim Robbins
there is absolute no objective evidence which negates the theory of evolution.

If you want to reck people's heads ask them were did DNA come from, I wouldn't bother arguing evolution theory there is way too much evidence for slow gradual change.

Creation Science ACCEPTS that gradual change via genetic drift and Natural Selection DOES occur (within Created Kinds and using pre-existing Genetic Information), thereby allowing populations of creatures to adapt to changes in the environment.

Creation Science ALSO accepts that rapid changes (sometimes leading to speciation) DOES occur (within Created Kinds and using pre-existing Genetic Information).

What Creation Science DOESN’T accept, is the unfounded belief that muck ‘lifted itself up by it’s own bootstraps’ via billions of mutations to create the enormous levels of COMPLEX TIGHTLY SPECIFIED INFORMATION that is found in the genomes of all living organisms!!

.....and BTW where did DNA come from????
[/B]
I don't consdier creationism a science.

J C wrote:

Yes, Spontaneous Evolution would need TEN THOUSAND BILLION BILLION BILLION YEARS to generate a sequence for a specific simple protein!!!!

eh I don't think so.

Tim Robbins
Do you just think that 1,000,000,000 fossils are just a coincidence that they indicate slow gradual change then?
Or do you think we should have found another billion or something?

We have certainly ENOUGH fossils unearthed to reach a conclusion in relation to the validity of ‘Gradual Evolution’ – and here are the views of leading EVOLUTIONISTS on the matter:-

Charles Darwin, ‘On the imperfection of the geological record’, Chapter x, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, , pp 292-293.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

Dr. David M Raup, former Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, ‘Conflicts between Darwin and palaeontology’ Field Musem of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50(1), pp 25.
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition that we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”

Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University, ‘Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology vol 6(1), pp127.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University. Evolution’s erratic pace’ Natural History, vol LXXXVI (5) pp 14.‘
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record.”


Prof George Gaylord Simpson Ph D. Late Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. ‘The Major Features of Evolution’ Columbia University Press, New York, pp 360
“It remains true, as every palaeontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families and nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

Truly devastating evidence AGAINST ‘Gradual Evolution’ – and confirmed by the some of top EVOLUTIONISTS that have ever lived!!!!

You are taking those quotes out of context.

Tim Robbins
If a fossil of a species say a rabbit was found at a time, that could not be placed in a lineage consistent with slow gradual change the theory would fall apart.

Such ‘inconsistencies’ are OFTEN found …….and they are simply ignored.:D

Examples include finding Human tools WITHIN supposed 500 million year old coal seams and fossilised Human footprints ALONGSIDE fossilised Dinosaur footprints in the same rock!!!!:eek:

Well bring out a book, I am sure you have written more than a book in this thread already.