The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Apologies for misreading you. So scientists know that missing hair is due to mutations in our genome, rather than being the nature of the genome?

Yes, though your question does demonstrate you still don't really understand this subject very well

J C

SetantaL wrote: »

Creationism is a fiction. The bible is a fiction. acceptance is based on faith.
Trying to argue with either of these statements is pointless. #

Evolotion is fact. Backed up with Evidence and not based on faith.

...as I have said before ......
........for those who still believe in Evolution as a "fact".....here are some quotes from leading Evolutionists .......whose honestly expressed doubts about ALL aspects of Evolution......puts Spontaneous 'Molecules to Man' Evolution somewhere between Santa Clause and the Yeti......on the 'believability scale'!!!!:D
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

Guidestones..........Evolutionist Inbreeding.........and Evolutionist 'Yeties'...........DISCUSS!!!:D

J C

J C wrote: »

...as I have said before ......
........for those who still believe in Evolution.....here are some quotes from leading Evolutionists .......whose honestly expressed doubts about ALL aspects of Evolution......

Who cares?
Thankfully some eejits waffling on about science doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the science

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

...as I have said before ......
........for those who still believe in Evolution.....here are some quotes from leading Evolutionists .......whose honestly expressed doubts about ALL aspects of Evolution......puts Spontaneous 'Molecules to Man' Evolution somewhere between Santa Clause and the Yeti......on the 'believability scale'!!!!:D
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

Heavens, what a marvellous source of partial quotes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

Who cares?

Thankfully some eejits waffling on about science doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the science

Great to have the ever-beautiful bluewolf join us again on our discussion......

You are correct that nobody would care ........IF they were JUST "some eejits waffling on about science".........

.......but these guys are ALL of the leading Evolutionists from Darwin to Gould and Eldredge as well as Simpson, Raup, Kemp, Urey and EVEN Crick and Dawkins!!!!

......and the COMBINATION of ALL of their honestly expressed DOUBTS about practically EVERY aspect of Evolution .........makes 'molecules to Man' Evolution a scientific non-runner.......for any objective observer!!!!:D:)

.....BTW do you ACTUALLY think that Darwin et al ARE "eejits waffling on about science"????

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heavens, what a marvellous source of partial quotes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

They are reasonable summaries of the doubts expressed.........

I have no doubt that faith-filled Evolutionists DO expect that 'something will turn up' .......to 'save the day' for evolution....

......but we are at this for over 150 years.....and NOTHING has turned up so far......except MORE evidence for Direct Creation!!!!!:D:)

......indeed I once was a faith-filled Evolutionist myself.......drooling over the latest stories of fish spontaneously throwing themselves onto land and developing legs.....or was it the other way around.......

.....anyway, my Evolutionist 'bubble was pricked' by a beautiful young Christian woman who challenged me on all points about Evolution.......and I had NO answers for her......and when I went looking I could find no substantive answers to her contentions either........!!!!!:D

J C

J C wrote: »

Great to have the ever-beautiful bluewolf join us again on our discussion......

You are correct that nobody would care ........IF they were JUST "some eejits waffling on about science".........

.......but these guys are ALL of the leading Evolutionists from Darwin to Gould and Eldredge as well as Simpson, Raup, Kemp, Urey and EVEN Dawkins!!!!

......and their honestly expressed DOUBTS about practically EVERY aspect of Evolution .........makes 'molecules to Man' Evolution a scientific non-runner.......for any objective observer!!!!:D:)

People who don't express doubt don't learn. That's how science works. All of it

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

People who don't express doubt don't learn. That's how science works. All of it

......you may be correct.......but when the doubts are all going one way.....as with Yetis and Evolution.......then the logical scientific conclusion that NEITHER exists ........surely beckons!!!:eek::D:)

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

People who don't express doubt don't learn. That's how science works. All of it

......can I learn more about you......by expressing doubts about you????;):)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

They are reasonable summaries of the doubts expressed.........

Let's take a statement:

"There are of course obvious difficulties with evolution - not least the puzzling dearth of transitional fossils. Fortunately recent developments in the field have filled in most, if not all, of these blanks."

Now let's get Creationist on its ass:

"There are of course obvious difficulties with evolution - not least the puzzling dearth of transitional fossils."

Ta-da! Instaquote! Evolutionist expresses doubts! Your signature quote is a fine example of the type. It's from a much longer passage, where it can be seen in context as exactly the kind of "set-up statement" as above.

J C wrote: »

.........and I have no doubt that faith-filled Evolutionists DO expect that 'something will turn up' .......to 'save the day' for evolution....

......but we are at this for over 150 years.....and NOTHING has turned up so far......except MORE evidence for Direct Creation!!!!!:D:)

......indeed I once was a faith-filled Evolutionist myself.......drooling over the latest stories of fish spontaneously throwing themselves onto land and developing legs.....or was it the other way around.......

.....anyway, my 'bubble was pricked' by a beautiful young Christian woman who challenged me on all points about Evolution.......and I had NO answers for her......and when I went looking I could find no substantive answers to her contentions either........!!!!!:D

I am certainly glad you managed to move on from your initial position of ignorant credulity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's take a statement:

"There are of course obvious difficulties with evolution - not least the puzzling dearth of transitional fossils. Fortunately recent developments in the field have filled in most, if not all, of these blanks."

Could you please reference the above quote.

IF such a statement were made it would be a meaningless contradiction .....
.......because IF "recent developments in the field have filled in most, if not all, of these blanks".......then the intitial statement that "There are of course obvious difficulties with evolution - not least the puzzling dearth of transitional fossils" would be invalid!!!!:eek::)

Indeed WHY would somebody claim that there is a "puzzling dearth of transitional fossils".......when they believe that "recent developments in the field have filled in most, if not all, of these blanks"?????

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now let's get Creationist on its ass:

"There are of course obvious difficulties with evolution - not least the puzzling dearth of transitional fossils."

Ta-da! Instaquote! Evolutionist expresses doubts! Your signature quote is a fine example of the type. It's from a much longer passage, where it can be seen in context as exactly the kind of "set-up statement" as above.

......which Creationist quote are you referring to above?????

.....or are you just making this up????

Scofflaw wrote: »

I am certainly glad you managed to move on from your initial position of ignorant credulity.

Yes, I have found that Creation Science DID liberate me from (what YOU have termed) my "initial position of ignorant credulity".......as an EVOLUTIONIST!!!!:eek::)

Scofflaw

Jay Gould on partial quotes like the one in your signature:

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

— Jay Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260.

And the general context of your signature quote:

“What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.”

Jay Gould — "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 182-184.

In other words, your quote is exactly the kind of thing I illustrated (with a made-up quote) - a set-up statement for Gould's point, which is that evolution proceeds by punctuated equilibrium.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

They are reasonable summaries of the doubts expressed.........

What does Jesus teach Christians about lying JC? If this website lies about those quotes surely you must disregard it, to do otherwise would be un-Christian?

Dave!

J C wrote: »

......but we are at this for over 150 years.....and NOTHING has turned up so far......except MORE evidence for Direct Creation!!!!!:D:)

Even if it were the case that there were no evidence for evolution, it wouldn't change the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for creation! That's why it's not entertained by any scientist who is not an idiot!!!!! :):) And it's why creationists are considered extremely misguided by the vast majority of the scientific community But as long as you have faith that's it's true, work away and keep trying to force everything to fit into the Bible !!!!!! The rest of us will continue to support science and the successes it has brought us over the last few centuries.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Jay Gould on partial quotes like the one in your signature:

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

— Jay Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260.

And the general context of your signature quote:

“What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.”

Jay Gould — "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 182-184.

In other words, your quote is exactly the kind of thing I illustrated (with a made-up quote) - a set-up statement for Gould's point, which is that evolution proceeds by punctuated equilibrium.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Glad that you have admitted that you have MADE UP the quote that you were trying to use to 'prove' the invalidity of ACTUAL Creationist quotes!!!!

.....so ALL of the Evolutionist DOUBTS are valid in the document cited by me at http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

......and Prof Gould's quote in my signature IS a faithful representation of his views on GRADUAL i.e. neo-Darwinian Evolution....and THAT is why I am using it!!!
“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, Evolutionist and Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

What does Jesus teach Christians about lying JC? If this website lies about those quotes surely you must disregard it, to do otherwise would be un-Christian?

......the only person who has MADE UP a quote in the past few posts is Scofflaw!!!:D


........the quotes in http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html ARE a fair representation of the honest doubts expressed by Evolutionists about different aspects of Evolution.......each doubt would not be sufficient on it's own to reject Evolution .....and that may be why each Evolutionist continues to believe in Evolution.

.......it is the COMBINATION of ALL of these doubts, by different Evolutionists that is so damning to the Evolutionist case!!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

........the quotes in http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html ARE a fair representation

And baby Jesus wept ...

J C

DaveMcG wrote: »

Even if it were the case that there were no evidence for evolution, it wouldn't change the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for creation! That's why it's not entertained by any scientist who is not an idiot!!!!! :):) And it's why creationists are considered extremely misguided by the vast majority of the scientific community But as long as you have faith that's it's true, work away and keep trying to force everything to fit into the Bible !!!!!! The rest of us will continue to support science and the successes it has brought us over the last few centuries.

As a practicing operative scientist, I too have BOTH contributed to and supported the successes that science has brought us over the last few centuries!!!!!:D

.......as I have said .....I have no doubt that faith-filled Evolutionists DO expect that 'something will turn up' .......to 'save the day' for Evolution....

......but we ARE at this for over 150 years.....and NOTHING has turned up so far......except MORE evidence for Direct Creation!!!!!

......so are YOU still like me when I was a faith-filled Evolutionist .......drooling over the latest stories of fish spontaneously throwing themselves onto land and developing legs.....or bears throwing themselves into the sea.......and losing legs????:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

And baby Jesus wept ...

Jesus ISN'T a baby.....He is the sovereign Creator God of the Universe.....to whom EVERY person must give an account.....

......He ONLY weeps at the folly of the unsaved......and the daily trials of the saved !!:eek::D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Jesus ISN'T a baby.....He is the sovereign Creator God of the Universe.....to whom EVERY person must give an account.....

......He ONLY weeps at the folly of the unsaved......and the daily trials of the saved !!:eek::D

Thats a lot of weeping.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
but I doubt it was the sort of protection he was talking about.

Which is exactly the kind of common confusion that I was talking about here. Again, you've proved the point I was making.

Not really - Jackass wasn't confused, you were.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, though your question does demonstrate you still don't really understand this subject very well

I'll be glad to hear how they know this to be a fact; perhaps you can outline it?

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll be glad to hear how they know this to be a fact; perhaps you can outline it?

He didn't say it was a fact. No one should ever use that word in science.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

He didn't say it was a fact. No one should ever use that word in science.

OK, but they know it? Please explain what that means, and how it applies in this case.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'll be glad to hear how they know this to be a fact; perhaps you can outline it?

Scientists can tell if a gene has been recently (ie the last few hundred thousand years) been effected by mutation by looking at the molecule formations of the genes themselves. Recently mutated genes may look different than others (not always the case, but sometimes)

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, but they know it? Please explain what that means, and how it applies in this case.

You will have to wait for Wicknight to get back to you on that, i don't know the details of what you were discussing. But i can describe to you how science works. In the case of testing hypotheses, scientists would have to observe what the theory predicts in the natural world at least 95 times out of 100. This is done by conducting experiments, or by looking at the evidence that the natural world provides to us. Unless this confidence interval is satisfied then the hypothesis is rejected and the scientists go back to the drawing board. But if the above criteria is satisfied then the scientists can confidently say that they know whether something occurs and they know how it happens.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

You will have to wait for Wicknight to get back to you on that, i don't know the details of what you were discussing. But i can describe to you how science works. In the case of testing hypotheses, scientists would have to observe what the theory predicts in the natural world at least 95 times out of 100. This is done by conducting experiments, or by looking at the evidence that the natural world provides to us. Unless this confidence interval is satisfied then the hypothesis is rejected and the scientists go back to the drawing board. But if the above criteria is satisfied then the scientists can confidently say that they know whether something occurs and they know how it happens.

I would call that sort of confident knowledge a fact. Now it just remains for us to be shown they have 95%+ scientifically supported confidence that lack of hair on humans is the result of a mutation.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Scientists can tell if a gene has been recently (ie the last few hundred thousand years) been effected by mutation by looking at the molecule formations of the genes themselves. Recently mutated genes may look different than others (not always the case, but sometimes)

Sounds interesting - please point to research on the lack of human hair.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would call that sort of confident knowledge a fact.

You shouldn't though, because 99% confidence isn't fact. Einsteins theory of relatvity is 99% accurate, but once you reach the sub-atomic level these rules no longer hold up. However, it is still a valid theory. That is why they are called theories, because they cannot be proved 100%. In fact, nothing can be proved 100%, because you would have the rule out the infinite number of other possibilities.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

You shouldn't though, because 99% confidence isn't fact. Einsteins theory of relatvity is 99% accurate, but once you reach the sub-atomic level these rules no longer hold up. However, it is still a valid theory. That is why they are called theories, because they cannot be proved 100%. In fact, nothing can be proved 100%, because you would have the rule out the infinite number of other possibilities.

Hmm. In other words, there is no such thing as a fact? Is that a fact?:D

Bit I take your point, if fact is defined as absolute certainty.