Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
J C wrote:In plain language, Cognitive Dissonance is DENIAL – and Evolutionist are themselves in permanent DENIAL of the reality of Creation and the invalidity of ‘molecules to Man Evolution’.
you've yet to show any evidence of creation, where the evidence for evolution is clogging up the boards.ie serversJ C wrote:Evolutionists are quite free to do so – but because they suffer from Cognitive Dissonance in relation to Creation Science, Evolutionists refuse to even read Creation Science literature.
They're rejected ID papers purely on the fact that they lack any scientific merit.J C wrote:Most Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists and this gives them a depth of scientific expertise and objectivity that is lacking amongst Evolutionists.
sorry, evolutionists are lacking scientific expertise and objectivity and creation scientists whom the majority are former evolutionists have this expertise and objectively. This makes no sense. Do you have to do a second PhD or something to learn these new skills?J C wrote:Many of the assumptions surrounding Evolution are either completely invalidated by any objective assessment of the evidence or are logically ruled out.
For example the assumption that primordial molecules could ever spontaneously spring into life and evolve into Man is logically ruled out by the observed physical, chemical and biological Laws of the Universe.
Ah those would be the grand univeral laws of the universe. That is not a proper example. Give an example of these laws and how they invalidate evolutionJ C wrote:Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should or shouldn’t be taught in schools.
The policies adopted by organisations such as schools and churches are entirely a matter for these organisations – and they are of no concern to Creation Science.
does it?Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
....
We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences
There's so much more ammunition here
you're telling lies again0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
Eh? What’s this? Adam and Eve were married? Where’s the verses?
Gen 2:23-25.
Jesus Christ confirmed that these verses in Genesis are also the basis of Christian Marriage in Mt 19:4-6 and Mk10:6-9.
Fair enough - thanks.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Your inability to grasp any concept that doesn't resemble your pre-conceived notions is, in fact, a fine example of cognitive dissonance at work.
In plain language, Cognitive Dissonance is DENIAL – and Evolutionist are themselves in permanent DENIAL of the reality of Creation and the invalidity of ‘molecules to Man Evolution’.
5uspect
do any mainstream scientists (i.e. the vast majority) review any of your papers?
Evolutionists are quite free to do so – but because they suffer from Cognitive Dissonance in relation to Creation Science, Evolutionists refuse to even read Creation Science literature.
Credit where credit is due - you have an almost unparalleled ability not only to seize the wrong end of a stick, but to hit people with it afterwards.J C wrote:5uspect
the creationist reviewer will just double check his "facts" against the bible and then ignore (or lie about) thousands of man hours of painstaking, careful and logical research.
This is untrue – as this thread amply demonstrates.
Most Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists and this gives them a depth of scientific expertise and objectivity that is lacking amongst Evolutionists.
Shucks, I didn't think we'd actually reached the level of "thousands of man hours of painstaking, careful and logical research" on this thread yet.
You are ignoring, of course, the fact that almost every Western scientist is brought up as a Creationist. Those who return to it are merely reverting to childhood certainties.J C wrote:5uspect
There are many assumptions in science. They have to be a robust as possible or else they wouldn't survive peer review
There are indeed assumptions in science but they are all challengeable on the basis of objective evidence – and not just in peer review processes. Many of the assumptions surrounding Evolution are either completely invalidated by any objective assessment of the evidence or are logically ruled out.
For example the assumption that primordial molecules could ever spontaneously spring into life and evolve into Man is logically ruled out by the observed physical, chemical and biological Laws of the Universe.
I wonder why almost no-one agrees with you? Could it be that you are wrong?J C wrote:5uspect
You can't demand that your unproven views be taught in schools until it has undergone significant discussion in the mainstream scientific literature like everything else in the science syllabus.
Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should or shouldn’t be taught in schools.
The policies adopted by organisations such as schools and churches are entirely a matter for these organisations – and they are of no concern to Creation Science.
So all those attempts to get Creationism or ID taught in schools are what then? Are they fake? Are they staged by evolutionists? You're lying.J C wrote:The ban means that the only ‘origins explanation’ allowed to be taught in US public schools is pure Materialistic Evolution.
Paradoxically, this fact means that most Christian parents take steps to ensure that alternative scientifically valid Christian ‘origins explanations’ are ALSO taught to their children OUTSIDE of school – and this is one of the reasons why Creation Science is so vibrant in America today.
Yes, whereas where it is evaluated in comparison with evolution as in most of the rest of the West, Creationist belief is very much weaker.
By the way, I once again deride your claimed scientific qualifications.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:What strange ideas Evolutionists come up with to prop up their crumbling theory:-
1. That the Earth could never be flooded completely (even though there is enough SEA-WATER to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles).
That was not the claim! Of course you could take all the current land masses and bury them beneath the sea but
1. Where is the evidence that this was true for the whole Eatrh at any stage in the past?
2. If the Earth was volcananically active in the past, the heat coming from gravational collapse and from radioactive elements within the Earth decaying). then the temperature in the Hadel period would be high enough so that any "ocean" would be boiled off. It is after cooling and with Ice deliverd from space that oceans could be allowed to form. In addition it is by leeching and weather systems that salts could be delivered from solid salts into the oceans.2. That although the Earth was never flooded completely, at any one time, the entire surface of the planet was flooded bit by bit in some kind of ‘rolling flood’ that deposited billions of dead fossilised things all over the earth in layers of sediment up to seven miles deep!!
Not all the surface is covered with sedimentary rock. This just isnt true. Indeed some of it had been subducted.3. That a Supernova exploding 300 LY away will supposedly cause a mini extinction event on Earth even though it’s effect is roughly the equivalent of an oil tanker exploding on Pluto (i.e. absolutely no practical effect).
Let me give you some idea of the power of a Supernova. Earth is about 100 million miles from the sun and about 16 thousand miles across. the Sun is putting out radiation in all directions and only a very very tiny amount of that touches the Earth. the Sun has been doing thioos for about 4,500 million years. Of the Energy that reaches the Earth some of it is blocked some more reflected into space and a minority of it fixed into chains of carbon in plants. Some of these plants are squashed into the Earth and fossilised into carbon chains. All of our coal gas and oil come from this tiny fraction of a tiny amount of the tiny fraction of energy which came from the Sun which is putting out billions of times out total fossil fuel energy reserves in all directions. the Sun will continue to do this for about another 4,500 million years.
In one second a Supernova expends more energy than the sun will in its entire 9,000 million year lifetime. Thats a LOT of energy! And yes we can measure all of the above. that is such a serious amount of energy that yes even within hundreds of light years it will cause dramatic reprocussions i.e mass extinctions on the Earth.4. Equally Evolutionists now claim that the water on Earth was supplied by comets - presumably ‘up close and personal’ - but not crashing into the Earth!! This also ignores the fact that all of the comets ever observed didn’t contain enough water to fill a small lake!!!
Actually they would have to "crash" into the Earth. How else could they deliver theior payload? And the amount of ice left out in the Kuyper belt alone could fill oceans even now. and that is even consider the evidence for a much more active earlier period in the earlier solar system. Also recently Solar observations have discovered literally hundreds of comets (sun grazers and ones which plummet into the Sun) per month. So much so that the naming conventions had to be changed. If so many are about now after the Gas giants and the Sun sucked them up then there could be plenty of them in the earlier solar system.What type of gas would form a liquid ball that then presumably produced the silica, Iron, Aluminium and all of the other very solid elements that make up the Earth that we observe today?
Gas plasma? The type we observe in the spectrum of the Sun and in other stars? They elements which we have established equations for nucleosynthesis for? The most abundant elements in the Universe Hydrogen and Helium were around since the beginning. After that the most abundant elements are Carbon Oxygen and Nitrogen. these can be neuclosynthesised in stars. we have equations to show how it can be done and we can observe the relative abundance of them in stars. C H O and N are the basic chemicals which ALL living things possess. Their skeletons muscles shells etc. are made of them. Furthermore, Amino acids and protiens which make up DNA are also based on these chemicals. So their ability to reproduce are based on them. Their metabolism is also based on them as an energy source.
Any element up to Iron can be manufactured in stars. Rarer elements require more energy The sort of energy Supernovas produce can push large nuclei together. We can rpruduce this in the laboratory.Wicknight
(cognitive dissonance is) mostly found among religious people who have a hard time reconciling their religious beliefs with reality.
The scientific validity of Intelligent Design means that Cognitive Dissonance DOES apply to the faith proposition that ‘molecules evolved into Man‘ !!!!
Not really. wher are the two conflicting beliefs being held at the same time? Molocules evolving into man does not necessarily contradict God "creating" man.
There is nothing ‘wrong’ with Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry itself. Indeed it is used in many practical situations on Earth by engineers.
However, the problem arises when it is applied to astronomical calculations.
The ASSUMPTIONS made in establishing the direction in which a star is actually travelling, it’s position relative to other stars (and their actual positions/distances) or indeed the star’s actual rate of speed (which are all critical to the calculation) are just that (assumptions).
Gravational lensing works! It is currently discovering planets around other stars. But relativity is not needed to measure the distances to stars. Yes we can only traiangulate to several hundred light years but it is currently possible to put probes into space which can use much greater than the diameter of Earth orbit as a base line. If we can directly measure tens of thousands of light years what then? One will directly see the Galaxy is older than the 4004 BC. But there are also other indirect methods which are as valid as measuring the distance of a 100 Watt light bulb several miles away based on its observed brightness.5uspect
Observation is all well and good but you need to validate your observations through proper peer review (i.e. accredited scientists)
‘Done and dusted’ in Creation Science peer review groups every day!!!
REally? Care to list ten references from these "scientific" groups?0 -
J C wrote:Evolutionist are themselves in permanent DENIAL of the reality of Creation and the invalidity of ‘molecules to Man Evolution’.
..
Evolutionists refuse to even read Creation Science literature.
..
Most Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists
..
For example the assumption that primordial molecules could ever spontaneously spring into life and evolve into Man is logically ruled out by the observed physical, chemical and biological Laws of the Universe.
..
Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should or shouldn’t be taught in schools.
Please stop lying.
Its making my head spin :rolleyes:0 -
Originally Posted by J C
Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should or shouldn’t be taught in schools.
The policies adopted by organisations such as schools and churches are entirely a matter for these organisations – and they are of no concern to Creation Science.
5uspect
does it?
Originally Posted by Discovery Institute "Wedge Strategy" Governing Goals
Could I point out for the nth time that The Discovery Institute is an Intelligent Design Organisation – and NOT a Creation Science Organisation.
Creation Scientists are SCIENTISTS – and not Educationalists. What schools teach is obviously a matter for schools.
Scofflaw
You are ignoring, of course, the fact that almost every Western scientist is brought up as a Creationist. Those who return to it are merely reverting to childhood certainties.
Despite the ‘wall to wall’ promotion of Evolutionary ideas throughout the Western World, about 50% of young people in Ireland today continue to be Creationists*.
*Figure taken from a Project at the 2006 Young Science Exhibition.
The 50:50 split on the Creation / Evolution issue among young Irish people, is not as high as in America, where up to 80% are Creationists. However, the number of Creationists is still surprisingly high, in view of the fact that young people in Ireland have been exposed to ‘non-stop’ theistic and materialistic evolution, with hardly a mention of Creation Science in the popular media.
Many people remain Creationists because they intuitively know the objective evidence in favour of Creation and the overwhelming evidence AGAINST Evolution.
5uspect
you've yet to show any evidence of creation, where the evidence for evolution is clogging up the boards.ie servers
We’ve all been over this ground repeatedly. I have given both the evidence for Creation and against Evolution.
The Evolutionists have engaged in Ad Hominem remarks against me and ‘hand waving’ against the evidence for Creation.
For example, no coherent, evidentially based explanation for Materialistic Evolution, which comprehensively answers any of the following 23 questions was ever given on this thread, despite numerous failed attempts by Evolutionists to do so.
Such answers ARE required if Evolution is to be considered a plausible scientific contender for the emergence of Human Life, or indeed as the originator or developer of any life on Earth :-
1. Why do Evolutionists (of both the Theistic and Materialistic varieties) have an a priori position that life could ONLY originate through natural mechanisms, when such mechanisms have never been identified or demonstrated and a supernatural origin for life is such a distinct possibility, as to be a probability?
2. Please explain how Evolution "Muck to Man" actually 'WORKS'?
3. Why are all postulated mechanisms for the spontaneous generation of life never observed in the real world.
4. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism for the supposed earliest life forms that would allow any "accidental" positive changes to be preserved from one generation to the next?
5. Because of the vastness of the 'combinatorial space' and the observed rarity and specificity of the sequence for a useful Peptide, how can a useful peptide ‘evolve into’ another useful Peptide with no series of stepped advantages between one useful Peptide and another one?
Equally, what facts, scientific laws, inferences or tested scientific hypotheses can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution?
1. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
2. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, Evolutionists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do they not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligent design?
3. If Evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE functional continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?
4. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago?
5. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man who lived less than 10,000 years ago?
6. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than our most powerful computer systems?
8. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – when they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design and enormous personal effort?
9. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
10. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions that are recessive and therefore ‘masked’ most of the time?
11. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ?
12. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
13. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
14. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
15. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which most of the major animal and plant groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting ‘the evolutionary tree of life’?
16. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
17. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply the raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
18. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
Son Goku
This is an entire galaxy, which is 86,000 light years across and a supernova just outside the galaxy's rim.
That thing is over 800 light years wide JC and that's just the high intensity area of the explosion
Because supernovae reach maximum light intensity in a matter of WEEKS – this supernova cannot be 800 light YEARS across. If it is a Supernova, then the diameter of the “high intensity area” will be quite small at maximum intensity.
ISAW
In one second a Supernova expends more energy than the sun will in its entire 9,000 million year lifetime. Thats a LOT of energy! And yes we can measure all of the above. that is such a serious amount of energy that yes even within hundreds of light years it will cause dramatic reprocussions i.e mass extinctions on the Earth.
Your conclusions are based upon an incorrect premise. A Supernova results in the explosive dispersal of up to 10% of a star’s mass as hot gas – and NOT the nuclear transformation of the entire star into energy, as you have suggested. The energy yield is therefore only one 345 BILLIONTH of what you have claimed.
In addition, the energy burst will decline by the inverse square of the distance travelled and therefore the practical effects of a supernova become negligible at distances in excess of one LY.
ISAW
Molocules evolving into man does not necessarily contradict God "creating" man.
Evolution certainly does eliminate any PRACTICAL role for God in creating Man – and for this reason, atheists happily hold a belief in ‘molecules to Man Evolution’ as an article of faith.0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW
If the Earth was volcananically active in the past, the heat coming from gravational collapse and from radioactive elements within the Earth decaying). then the temperature in the Hadel period would be high enough so that any "ocean" would be boiled off. It is after cooling and with Ice deliverd from space that oceans could be allowed to form. In addition it is by leeching and weather systems that salts could be delivered from solid salts into the oceans.
How do you reconcile the above account with Gen 1:2 which indicates that the Earth was created as a WATER-COVERED planet?
ISAW
Actually they (comets) would have to "crash" into the Earth. How else could they deliver their payload?
I thought as much – but I don’t believe it – the damage would be too great!!!
ISAW
And the amount of ice left out in the Kuyper belt alone could fill oceans even now.
Sounds like the Earth would be blown apart by the crashing of the comets necessary to deliver the water for a small lake – to say nothing about the millions of crashing comets necessary to fill the Atlantic!!!!0 -
J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
Unlike Evolutionists, Creation Scientists have no particular views on what should or shouldn’t be taught in schools.
The policies adopted by organisations such as schools and churches are entirely a matter for these organisations – and they are of no concern to Creation Science.
5uspect
does it?
Originally Posted by Discovery Institute "Wedge Strategy" Governing Goals
Could I point out for the nth time that The Discovery Institute is an Intelligent Design Organisation – and NOT a Creation Science Organisation.
You can certainly say that, if you like. It doesn't really make any difference. "Intelligent Design" is Creationism - that's clear from its mission statement.
In any case, prior to the ID movement joining the party, Creationists fought long and hard to get Creationism into schools - in some places they continue to do so. You're lying.JC wrote:Scofflaw
You are ignoring, of course, the fact that almost every Western scientist is brought up as a Creationist. Those who return to it are merely reverting to childhood certainties.
Despite the ‘wall to wall’ promotion of Evolutionary ideas throughout the Western World, about 50% of young people in Ireland today continue to be Creationists*.
*Figure taken from a Project at the 2006 Young Science Exhibition.
The 50:50 split on the Creation / Evolution issue among young Irish people, is not as high as in America, where up to 80% are Creationists. However, the number of Creationists is still surprisingly high, in view of the fact that young people in Ireland have been exposed to ‘non-stop’ theistic and materialistic evolution, with hardly a mention of Creation Science in the popular media.
Many people remain Creationists because they intuitively know the objective evidence in favour of Creation and the overwhelming evidence AGAINST Evolution.
Yes, JC, that's what I said. Young people believe in Creationism - however, if they continue in science, that belief evaporates in the face of scientific theories that explain the observed evidence a thousand times better than the Bible does.
The 80% you cite as Creationists in the US is not true of scientists in the US, as you are well aware.JC wrote:5uspect
you've yet to show any evidence of creation, where the evidence for evolution is clogging up the boards.ie servers
We’ve all been over this ground repeatedly. I have given both the evidence for Creation and against Evolution.
The Evolutionists have engaged in Ad Hominem remarks against me and ‘hand waving’ against the evidence for Creation.
You have given no positive evidence whatsoever for Creationism, despite repeated requests that you do so. All you have offered is evidence of your misunderstandings in attempts to knock scientific theories - but perhaps you'd care to cite some specific piece of "proof" for Creationism that you have offered on this thread.
Questioning (or in my case, deriding) the "scientific credentials" you repeatedly claim, but have never identified, is far from an "ad hominem". Ad hominem arguments attempt to discredit an argument by bringing in irrelevant negative characteristics of one's opponent.
You claim to be a scientist well versed in several quite distinct disciplines. You frequently claim that "such and such" a piece of evolutionist theory is "impossible" according to some "universal law of whatever" or is a "mathematical impossibility". If your claim to be a scientific polymath is taken at face value, we must lend some credence to these statements, absurd though they seem. If, on the other hand, your claims to scientific expertise are false, then your pronouncements on "laws of the universe" are equally likely to be erroneous.
It is clear who benefits from your claims of scientific expertise - you do, since they strengthen your appallingly weak arguments. To point out that your opponent in a discussion is a liar and a fraud (as you are) is no ad hominem, when their lies and frauds are aimed at benefitting their side of the discussion (as yours are).JC wrote:For example, no coherent, evidentially based explanation for Materialistic Evolution, which comprehensively answers any of the following 23 questions was ever given on this thread, despite numerous failed attempts by Evolutionists to do so.
I think you'll find Whiskey Priest answered those. Perhaps you've forgotten?
deriding your "scientific qualifications",
Scofflaw0 -
I might ask why are supernatural beings never observed in the real world? (tho that would invalidate their supernatural status). Scientists are working hard to investigate evolutionary questions instead of falling back on ancient myths. Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers but requires many more decades of hard work to try and answer all our questions, and then we’ll probably uncover more questions! Religion on the other hand comes hardbound and complete without any need to question anything.
This insistence on so called creation scientists believing untestable bible stories while distorting science to suit their views only hinders real scientific work.
You'll find answers to most of your questions here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
If you disagree with the answers provided here please respond with actual evidence against them. The universal laws of the universe say so isn't good enough.0 -
J C wrote:I thought as much – but I don’t believe it – the damage would be too great!!!
Yes JC, because thousands of people each year are killed by snow balls :rolleyes:
Getting hit by frozen water is not the same as getting hit by solid rock. The water would have evaporated into the atmosphere from the heat of entery before anything touched the ground.0 -
5uspect wrote:This insistence on so called creation scientists believing untestable bible stories while distorting science to suit their views only hinders real scientific work.
I don't see how. In fact accross all the many varied fields and careers that fit under the general science heading, I would say the offerings made by cs's make no difference to peoples working lives what so ever.0 -
Advertisement
-
*Groan* .. not quite sure why I am bothering to do this, perhaps I hope that you will finially stop lying (all these questions have been answered a hundred times already)
Because no evidence has ever been discovered to show it originated any other way. And before you say it, us not understanding how something could develop is not evidence it was developed by some higher power.J C wrote:1. Why do Evolutionists (of both the Theistic and Materialistic varieties) have an a priori position that life could ONLY originate through natural mechanisms
As you have been told the mechanisms for abogensis have been observed in scientific conditions. Self-replicating molecules have been observed being created, replicating, and evolving. No supernatural even has ever been observed in scientific conditions, let allow the spontanious creation of a fully developed complex life form like a mammal or even an insect.J C wrote:when such mechanisms have never been identified or demonstrated and a supernatural origin for life is such a distinct possibility, as to be a probability?
While adapting an organism to an environment evolutionary changes brought on by mutation also eventually increase the biological complexity of an organism based on natural selection weeding out inferier adaptions. Despite your claims, the increase of genetic complexity due to mutation has been observed a number of times.J C wrote:2. Please explain how Evolution "Muck to Man" actually 'WORKS'?
Abogensis (the formation of self contained, self replicating and evolving molecules) has been observed in the real world. As you have been told beforeJ C wrote:3. Why are all postulated mechanisms for the spontaneous generation of life never observed in the real world.
These early self-replicating molecules made exact copies of their entire self (as do the ones studied in labs today), including any evolved changes. They were the conservation mechanism themselves. DNA developed a billion years later.J C wrote:4. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism for the supposed earliest life forms that would allow any "accidental" positive changes to be preserved from one generation to the next?
As has been explained to you already, they don't used stepped advantages, one simpler protien merges into another simpler protien to form a more complex protien.J C wrote:how can a useful peptide ‘evolve into’ another useful Peptide with no series of stepped advantages between one useful Peptide and another one?
Amino acids sequences that form protiens don't and never did form randomly, and no one has ever claimed they did. Please stop lyingJ C wrote:How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
Because its not. As I explained there is a difference between not knowing how something happened, and assuming it had to have an intelligent designers. We don't know exactly how it did form, but there is no reason to believe, based on what we know about evolution and natural selection, that DNA could not form naturallyJ C wrote:so why do they not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligent design?
There are. All life, all life on Earth are "intermediate forms"J C wrote:If Evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures.
More lies. It doesn't JC. Our Mitochondrial DNA shows that all females have a common anncestor from 150,000 year ago. BTW I think it is hilarious that you continue on about M-Eve (even if its clear you don't understand the theory at all) when the theory of M-Eve completely disproves young earth creationism. M-Eve lived at least 150,000 years ago in Africa Funny that isn't mentioned in the Bible isn't it :rolleyes:J C wrote:Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago?
More mistakes and lies.J C wrote:How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
Levels of manufacturing abilities of mankind are far higher than those of biology. Researchers at IBM have spelt out "IBM" in a series of atoms. Individual electons can be created and manipulated. That is a little more sophisticated than known biochemical systems don't you think
No idea what you are talking about here. You think the complexity of the machines used to study something must mean it was ID? Have you any idea the size of the computer systems used to model the earths weather? Does that mean the earths weather is intelligent? What nonsense :rolleyes:J C wrote:Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – when they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design and enormous personal effort?
As has already been explained to you, evolution adapts based on environment. THe environment is always changing. Therefore even if something is prefectly adapted to an environment, evolution is constantly happening because the enviornment is constantly changing.J C wrote:Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
Another lie. Gentitic mutation has been observed increasing genetic complexity. Besides that the vast majority of genetic mutations are harmless and simply do nothing, so where you got the ridiculous idea that all genetic mutations are lethal is beyond me! More lies. Hell the average human has 60-65 mutations in them different from their parents. And for some reason we aren't all dead. Go figure :rolleyes:J C wrote:Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions that are recessive and therefore ‘masked’ most of the time?
Because the contiditions for simple biogensis (Earth 4 billion years ago) don't exist anymore, so simply living systems don't exist anymore. They all evolved or died. If you re-create the contitions in a lab you get biogensis again and simple self-replicating molecules. As you have been told beforeJ C wrote:Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
Modern DNA requires pre-existence of other modern DNA. Who said it was like that 3 billion year ago?J C wrote:How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
We have. Stop lyingJ C wrote:Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
That isn't true. There are many transitional fossils in the cambrian period, that lasted between 5 and 40 million years. There were also fossils from complex life before the cambrian period. More liesJ C wrote:What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which most of the major animal and plant groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting ‘the evolutionary tree of life’?
It wasn't.J C wrote:Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection
It isn'tJ C wrote:Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations
Ah, and now we get to the route of the problem you have with evolution. You think it means you are not "special"J C wrote:Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident
Sorry JC but your personal inferiority complex isn't really a reason to ignore the natural world around us is it now.
And if all you can do is lie to prove your point, well then your point isn't really proved now is it.0 -
Show me this calculation, because I've done one that doesn't agree with yours.In addition, the energy burst will decline by the inverse square of the distance travelled and therefore the practical effects of a supernova become negligible at distances in excess of one LY.
Let's compare formula and point out each others mistakes.
Oh and I'm still waiting on you to tell me what the assumptions and their effects on the calculations are when using Riemannian Geometry to calculate stellar distances and motion.
Or if you can't tell me that, will I show you the calculations I did and you tell me what is wrong with them?
Enough dodging. If Creation Science is actually science then you can answer this. If it's nothing but poorly formed rhetoric then you won't be able to.0 -
Another thing JC, before you use the term again, could you strictly define what you mean by genetic information.0
-
At this stage of the debate, perhaps those of us on the evolutionist side should make a real effort to track down some Creation Science? I know it's hardly a fair test, but given the reluctance of our Creationist friends to provide any, perhaps it's necessary if we're ever to see this semi-mythical beast.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
bus77 wrote:I don't see how. In fact accross all the many varied fields and careers that fit under the general science heading, I would say the offerings made by cs's make no difference to peoples working lives what so ever.
You try and get funding for proper scientific work when there are creationists and creationist politicians claiming their beliefs are science and evolution is completely wrong.0 -
5uspect wrote:You try and get funding for proper scientific work when there are creationists and creationist politicians claiming their beliefs are science and evolution is completely wrong.
Hav'nt got a clue how the yanks funding system works so If ya say they are in a position to block funding I'll have to take your word for it.0 -
Scofflaw said:
I agree, politicians who stir up passions cannot wash their hands of forseeable consequences. That is true of both Unionist and Nationalist politicians who gave unbalanced condemnations of the 'other side', but claim they had no responsibility for the actions of those who sought to right the perceived wrongs.And their supporters and fellow-travellers such as the Roarin' Rev? Is it the case that because they do not commit the violence, but "only" condone it and assist in the creation of the conditions for it, that they are innocent of it?
Most of these politicians were not true Christians, but some were. One mitigating factor that can be offered is initial ignorance. They didn't fully foresee how sincere people would react, being politicians who are mostly concerned with cheap volumes of hot-air. Another factor is more understandable: they saw only the wrongs done to their community and had not thought about the problems of the other side. I myself was guilty of that for a few years.
I agree, although modern war throws up high levels of collateral damage. What cannot be accepted is the specific targeting of the innocent.Tricky one - I agree that it's war, rather than crime. As you say, good people can and do use force to achieve their ends, which they feel justify the means. I can only find it morally acceptable where those killed are complicit in the war.
I have a simple metric for wars - number of children (under 12) and infants (under 2) killed. It is never acceptable to kill the innocent, and only children can be assumed to be innocent, since they lack the experience and/or judgement to be guilty.
Not really. And it doesn't apply just to true Christians: anyone who seriously follows any ideal will have their behaviour modified by it. Those who live no different from the immoral just show how insincere their professed belief is.All of which makes the "profession" of Christianity effectively irrelevant - someone who adheres to Christianity is neither more nor less likely to be a good person than someone who doesn't, since you claim that in effect, they are the same except in a very small number of cases (the "elect" to coin a phrase). I think you may have painted yourself into a corner.
Sure, these things can happen in marriage; just like you can be killed in an RTA while sitting in your own home. It is the probabilities that matter. Monogamy is much safer and more likely to bring long-term fulfilment than promiscuity or polygamy.It seems I have, then - without STD, pregnancy, or violence. To push on with points made by other posters - marriage does not reduce the impact of violence within a relationship, it merely limits the perpetrator to one person! STD's can be transmitted by non-sexual routes, particularly mother-to-child during birth, but also by various routes of ordinary contagion.
It is all down to the defination of 'religious'. By definition, folk who are Christian (of any type) are those who will practice Christ's ways. Promiscuity is not one of His ways. Therefore, those who say they are good Catholics or born-again Baptists or whatever, but who live immorally, are just hypocrites. They are 'social' or nominal Christians, irreligious folk who wear the religious label for some ulterior motive.Again, it is clear from the stats that populations that are more religious do not have lower rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but higher. I can see that you have to think what you think, but your opinion is in conflict with available statistics.
I doubt that, my friend. I who feel comfortable passing such a group, not because they are constrained by their enviroment, but rather by their (usually) Humanist or other socially friendly beliefs. Surely you are not saying that they are likely to attack a pensioner once they have left the vicinity of the building or their atheist companions?No, it's the social context - those who are coming out of atheist lectures are equally unlikely aggressors, despite their unbelief! Your argument is fundamentally a class distinction, I think.
Leaving aside the nature of true conversion to Christ and its radical effects, I am indeed saying that both humanism and Christianity have positive morally restraining effects on the individual who holds that belief. My argument concerned how atheism in itself removes all moral restraints, if followed logically. Humanism is not a logical development of atheism, but a desperate refuge by the atheist who feels the chilly winds of meaninglessness.Essentially, then, we're not really talking about a question of faith - we are talking about people who are immoral or amoral. They choose not to "truly accept" Christianity because to do so would hinder their self-indulgence. They would refuse humanism, or social-contract morality, for exactly the same reason. That in turn suggests that Christianity as a force for morality has little or no advantage over humanism, despite its godly backer!0 -
Scofflaw said:
I don't see how you reached this conclusion, but let me set it out as clearly as I can:I am amused, as ever, by the simultaneous Creationist claims that worldwide flood myths validate the Biblical account, while also claiming that everyone but Noah and his family were wiped out. Clearly Noah's family did not write the flood myths of the Native Americans. Or did they?!
Please choose your preferred claim and stick to it. I cannot allow you to have both and not deride you!
Noah and his family were the only human survivors of the Flood. His descendants spread out over the Earth to become all the peoples and nations that have existed since then, including the Native Americans. We are all cousins, with Noah as our granddaddy many times removed. All of the accounts of the Flood were written by his descendants.
Slavery, like polygamy and easy divorce, were never God's standard. He tolerated their existence for a time but modified and ameliorated their worst effects. But 'it was not so from the beginning', and Christians are commanded to love their neighbours as themselves. Support for slavery is not an option.As did slavery. And genocide has had the ultimate backing, of course.
The Genocide of the Amalekites was a God-ordained judgement, not a man-devised one. God is allowed to preserve or destroy sinners as He sees fit. We are not.
I am not confusing them, just pointing out that a 'born that way' defence is not accepted by most of us for one sort of sexual behaviour, and therefore cannot be offered in defence of another. I don't accept the concept anyway, but even if I did, your point about it not justifying the behaviour stands.A paedophile may indeed be "born that way", but that does not lessen his/her moral guilt for giving in. I am sure you would say the same about homosexuals. However, the two are different, and should not be confused by apparently linking them.0 -
Wicknight said:
Yes, all accounts were written by Noah's descendants.That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I thought there descendants wrote the Biblical account. Are you saying there are lots of different accounts of the Flood, from different tribes? Some of which didn't follow the Hewbrew God, despite the fact that he just wiped everyone in the world out
That's a good point about them not following the God whom they had seen in the judgement of the Flood. Sounds crazy. But it is how human nature works: God delivers the sinner today, tomorrow He is forgotten. Right after the Flood many of them built Baylon, in direct opposition to God's command to spread out over the world. God had to remove their common language, forcing them to break into groups that understood one another, so that they would no longer have a common purpose and would head off to make their own societies.
Even today, many pray to God in extremity and if they are delivered, quickly forget about Him. The truth is, man in his deepest being hates God and wants to be his own god. The Preacher said, Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.Ecclesiastes 9:3b.
God did not make us sinful. We did that. He made man in the beginning able to sin or not. When Adam sinned, we lost the ability to be perfectly good. We were born like Adam in his fallen state.True. Which would beg the question why did God make us that way if it displeases him so much.
As I pointed out above, man was originally made sinless. Also, made male and female: the sexual union was meant to be male and female.Well they are the way God originally made us to be. So I guess the question is why
Yes, God could have stopped Adam sinning. But He did not choose to do so. With the sin, all of nature became open to perverseness.What force can perverse nature beyond God's original plan? Surely this power would be great than God's, if it can change the fundamental biological structures of nature away from what God originally wanted
But this anomaly will not last forever. God has appointed a Day in which He will judge the world, putting an end to all that is evil. Man lives in rebellion against God today, but then every knee shall bow to Him. __________________0 -
5uspect said:
We hold it is not man-made, but God-breathed. God inspired men to write it, in their own style, but conveying His message. Why do we do so? There are various 'proofs' of the reliability of the Bible - fulfilled prophecy, for example - but ultimately one knows the Bible to be true because God reveals that to our minds.Satanic cosmic rays perhaps? I would like to know what is it exaclty that makes the bilbe so infallible? Why do people trust this highly edited man made jumble over vasts chunks of the scienfitic literature which back ups its statements with observation?
Everyone of us is born blind to spiritual truth; 2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
But this invincible darkness is lifted when God brings the gospel to us by the power of His Holy Spirit: 2 Corinthians 4:6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
As Christ put it: My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. John 10:27. A man becomes a Christian when he hears the voice of God in the gospel call; he repents and believes on Jesus Christ as his Lord.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight said:
I hope my response to 5uspect has answered that. But let me elaborate. The Bible is our source of knowledge about God's will for us. We do not have such a detailed revelation anywhere else in nature - so we take what the Bible says seriously. Next, the Bible says of itself that it is not only the revelation of God to us, but it has His character, ie., is his Word. It is infallible, without error. It is not a collation of what men think about God, but God's message to us.I'm not trying to attack the Bible, but seriously, after asking that question about 5 times already, no one has given a proper answer.
Do you actually know? Is it simply because the religion as a whole says so, or is it a personal choice to accept the Bible as the spokes person for God?
We cannot believe the God of the Bible without the Bible being His Word. We cannot be true Christians without holding that the Bible is His Word.
Lastly, our belief in both God and His message to us is made possible by the enlightening of God the Holy Spirit: it is Him who inwardly convinces us of these truths. Jesus said, He who is of God hears God’s words. John 8:47a.0 -
Fallen Seraph said:
The same witness to His majesty as we all receive. We, like them, naturally resist this knowledge and make our own gods. Had we not this rebellion in our hearts, we would seek after the God who is revealed as the Creator. As it is, it is only when God seeks after us that we truly seek Him. He sends stirs the conscience of those He is going to save; He enlightens their minds; He imparts a sorrow fro sin and a love of God.But nature gives us no knowledge of god. Science tries explain nature in a manner completely that requires no supernatural force, and is so far doing a pretty darn good job of it.
Moreover, assuming no scientific method, exactly what knowledge of god does nature give to a taihitan tribe that couldn't be explained in terms of pagan deities? That's simply not giving them a chance.0 -
5uspect said:
Many folk claim to have seen such. Not that all need to be accepted as true accounts or correct observations, but they cannot be just dismissed like this.I might ask why are supernatural beings never observed in the real world?
How so? Supernatural doesn't mean invisible.(tho that would invalidate their supernatural status).
That's the nature of absolute truth. There is no room for options. But that is not to say Christians are not thinkers, for we all struggle to correctly understand even the revealed truths of the Bible and the world around us.Scientists are working hard to investigate evolutionary questions instead of falling back on ancient myths. Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers but requires many more decades of hard work to try and answer all our questions, and then we’ll probably uncover more questions! Religion on the other hand comes hardbound and complete without any need to question anything.
The same could be said of evolutionary scientists, as macro-evolution is untestable. We argue that they distort science to suit their views.This insistence on so called creation scientists believing untestable bible stories while distorting science to suit their views only hinders real scientific work.
But both groups can do real research on the mechanisms of nature, and they do.0 -
Scofflaw said:
Check out the RATE project mentioned here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.aspAt this stage of the debate, perhaps those of us on the evolutionist side should make a real effort to track down some Creation Science? I know it's hardly a fair test, but given the reluctance of our Creationist friends to provide any, perhaps it's necessary if we're ever to see this semi-mythical beast.
I'm not sure how much of it is available on-line as opposed to the textbook. But there are many technical articles freely available.
Here's an interesting interview with with leading Australian molecular biologist and microbiologist Ian Macreadie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/research.asp0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Check out the RATE project mentioned here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
I'm not sure how much of it is available on-line as opposed to the textbook. But there are many technical articles freely available.
The whole arguement of the RATE group is that radioactive decay rates have varied by five orders of magnitude over geological time without any evidence. Rates that the scientific literature say are constant:
"It has been suggested that this increased decay rate could have been part of the rock-forming processes on the early earth and/or one of the results of God's judgments upon man following the Creation, i.e., the curse or during the Flood."
Is this not an obvious example of creationists distorting science to fit their biblical views? A full dubunk of this shocking attempt at science can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958/weekly/weekly43.htm
Now can you give me a valid example of how exactly evolutionists distort science?
My point is that if we could see fairys and angels flying about Tescos or fossilised in the ground they would be documented as part of the natural world just like dinosaurs and earthworms. The problem is they only exist in the minds of those who choose to believe in them through blind faith alone.wolfsbane wrote:How so? Supernatural doesn't mean invisible.
They exist outside what we can observe. I'm sure you have no problems realising that the flying spaghetti monster, a supernatural being, is pure fantasy.
How do you know the authors style wasn't to use a make believe god to inforce his point by saying that he was inspired by god? You almost seem to support this yourself:wolfsbane wrote:God inspired men to write it, in their own style
Could the bible possibly not be a result of people making their own god, a god that works by their rules and morals?wolfsbane wrote:The truth is, man in his deepest being hates God and wants to be his own god0 -
Can you give an example of a fulfilled prophecy please? Hows do these prove reliably that the bible is the word of god and not fabricated stories loosly attached to some actual historical truth?wolfsbane wrote:There are various 'proofs' of the reliability of the Bible - fulfilled prophecy, for example0 -
5uspect
So everyone else - name and shame your academic achievement!
‘Naming and shaming’ your academic achievements, eh!!!
Sounds like a rather counter-productive activity on any thread
- and a completely irrelevant activity on the Christianity Forum!!!
For me 1 Cor 1:25 says it all about anybody who wishes to ‘name and shame’ themselves!!
“For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength” (NIV).
Originally Posted by J C
1. Why do Evolutionists (of both the Theistic and Materialistic varieties) have an a priori position that life could ONLY originate through natural mechanisms
Wicknight
Because no evidence has ever been discovered to show it originated any other way. And before you say it, us not understanding how something could develop is not evidence it was developed by some higher power.
NO evidence has been discovered for ‘molecules to Man Evolution’ either – but an a priori position that life COULDN’T have evolved is un-scientific – just like the a priori position that Creation DIDN’T occur.
Science should ethically pursue knowledge and objectively evaluate evidence wherever it may be found. If the evidence supports Evolution, so be it or equally, if it supports Creation so be it ALSO.
Originally Posted by J C
when such mechanisms have never been identified or demonstrated and a supernatural origin for life is such a distinct possibility, as to be a probability?
Wicknight
As you have been told the mechanisms for abogensis have been observed in scientific conditions. Self-replicating molecules have been observed being created, replicating, and evolving.
So-called ‘self replicating’ molecules cannot account for the vast quantities of INFORMATION stored in the DNA of even the simplest organism.
It is analogous to saying that because iron filings form ordered patterns that eventually they will organise themselves into a tape and tapedeck and begin to pump out the music of Status Quo.
The critical ingredient, once again is intelligently produced information (in the case of the music) and specified complexity (in the case of the tape and tapedeck).
Wicknight
No supernatural even has ever been observed in scientific conditions, let allow the spontanious creation of a fully developed complex life form like a mammal or even an insect
I agree. If Creation did occur, then it is not repeatably observable and therefore outside of Science. Equally, if life evolved gradually over billions of years this is also not repeatably observable and therefore is ALSO outside of Science.
What science CAN repeatably examine is the evidence that should be still here if either hypotheses occurred.
Here are just a few of the predictions of the Evolutionary and Creation hypotheses and how they compare with the 'real World':-
I will use the following sequence for each Category:-
(1)Category (2)Evolution Model Prediction (3)Creation Model Prediction & (4)Observed Reality.
(1)Galactic Universe (2)Galaxies Changing (3)Galaxies Constant (4)Galaxies Constant.
(1)Structure of Stars (2)Stars changing into other improved types (3)Stars Unchanged or dying (4)Stars Unchanged or dying.
(1)Other Heavenly Bodies (2)Building up or being formed (3)Breaking down or stable (4)Breaking down or stable.
(1)Geology (2)No evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe (3)Evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe (4) Evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe.
(1)Life (2)Life observed evolving from non-life (3)Life only observed coming from other life (4) Life only observed coming from other life.
(1)Array of organisms (2)Continuum of organisms (3)Distinct Kinds of organisms separated by ‘gaps’ (4)Distinct Kinds separated by ‘gaps’.
(1)Appearance of new Kinds (2)New kinds appearing (3)No new kinds appearing (4)No new kinds appearing.
(1)Mutations (2)Nearly always Beneficial (3)Nearly always Harmful (4)Nearly always Harmful.
(1)Natural Selection (2)Creative process (3)Conservation Process (4)Conservation Process.
(1)Fossil Record (2)Clear Transitions evident (3)Systematic Gaps (4)Systematic Gaps.
(1)Fossil Record (2)Small numbers of poorly preserved specimens (3)Large numbers of well preserved specimens (4)Large numbers of well preserved specimens.
(1)Appearance of Man (2)Ape-like Intermediates (3)No Intermediates (4)No Intermediates.
(1)Nature of Mankind (2)Quantitatively superior to animals (3)Qualitatively distinct from animals (4)Qualitatively distinct from animals.
(1)Origin of Civilization (2)Slow & gradual (3)Contemporaneous with Mankind (4)Contemporaneous with Mankind.
(1)God (2)Doesn’t need to exist (3)Can be objectively proven to exist (4)Can be objectively proven to exist.0 -
Originally Posted by J C
2. Please explain how Evolution "Muck to Man" actually 'WORKS'?
Wicknight
While adapting an organism to an environment evolutionary changes brought on by mutation also eventually increase the biological complexity of an organism based on natural selection weeding out inferier adaptions.
The words ‘mutagenic substance’ sends shivers down the spine for very good reasons. Mutations are almost always deleterious and always degrade genetic information. Mutations show no potential to account for the enormous increase in genetic information between so-called simple cells and Mankind.
Natural Selection does indeed ADAPT populations to changing environments and/or allows populations to exploit new ecological niches – but it uses extant pre-existing genetic diversity to do so.
Originally Posted by J C
3. Why are all postulated mechanisms for the spontaneous generation of life never observed in the real world.
Wicknight
Abogensis (the formation of self contained, self replicating and evolving molecules) has been observed in the real world
The formation of "self contained, self replicating molecules" is NOT (by a long shot) the formation of LIFE aka Abiogenesis.
Originally Posted by J C
4. What is the postulated "conservation" mechanism for the supposed earliest life forms that would allow any "accidental" positive changes to be preserved from one generation to the next?
Wicknight
These early self-replicating molecules made exact copies of their entire self (as do the ones studied in labs today), including any evolved changes. They were the conservation mechanism themselves. DNA developed a billion years later.
If something is DEAD a billion years won’t make one iota of a difference – it will still be DEAD. Ditto with self-replicating molecules. You are also confusing the (complex) chemistry aspect of DNA with its (infinitely more complex) information storage dimension.
Originally Posted by J C
how can a useful peptide ‘evolve into’ another useful Peptide with no series of stepped advantages between one useful Peptide and another one
Wicknight
As has been explained to you already, they don't used stepped advantages, one simpler protien merges into another simpler protien to form a more complex protien.
Such protein mergers have never been observed and the resultant ‘merged protein’ and all of its intermediates would be equally USELESS!!
Proteins do form tightly specified bio-chemical cascades but these processes DON'T merge the proteins involved.
Originally Posted by J C
How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
Wicknight
Amino acids sequences that form protiens don't and never did form randomly, and no one has ever claimed they did.
I agree with you on this one.
However, the only plausible mechanism then is their Creation by an infinitely intelligent mind aka God!!!
Originally Posted by J C
so why do they not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligent design?
Wicknight
Because its not. As I explained there is a difference between not knowing how something happened, and assuming it had to have an intelligent designers. We don't know exactly how it did form, but there is no reason to believe, based on what we know about evolution and natural selection, that DNA could not form naturally
We know enough to be able to recognise that the radio broadcast of the DNA code for an Amoeba from deep space would be objective proof of ET intelligence.
The Amoeba itself is therefore also proof of ET intelligence aka God.
Equally, we know enough about the alternative hypothesis of Evolution and it’s equally hamstrung first cousin Mutation, to rule out these mechanisms as the source of the massive quantities of tightly specified information in DNA.
Originally Posted by J C
If Evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures
Wicknight
There are. All life, all life on Earth are "intermediate forms"
All living creatures are observed to have functionally USEFUL organs and sensory mechanisms, i.e. they do NOT have intermediate structures (on the way to alternative structures).
It is actually impossible to even imagine what such intermediates could be while still retaining functionality (as required in order to be preserved by NS).
Originally Posted by J C
Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago?
Wicknight
It doesn't JC. Our Mitochondrial DNA shows that all females have a common anncestor from 150,000 year ago. BTW I think it is hilarious that you continue on about M-Eve (even if its clear you don't understand the theory at all) when the theory of M-Eve completely disproves young earth creationism. M-Eve lived at least 150,000 years ago in Africa Funny that isn't mentioned in the Bible isn't it
As I have said before, the common ancestor of all women IS logically the first woman aka EVE!!
Creation Science has established that the regression equations indicate that she lived less than 10,000 years ago. Even your figure of 150,000 years is a mere ‘drop in the ocean’ of supposed Evolutionary ‘billions of years’.
The Bible is silent on the location of the Garden of Eden – and it’s location cannot now be established because of the ‘interruption’ caused by Noah’s Flood.
Originally Posted by J C
How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
Wicknight
Levels of manufacturing abilities of mankind are far higher than those of biology. Researchers at IBM have spelt out "IBM" in a series of atoms. Individual electons can be created and manipulated. That is a little more sophisticated than known biochemical systems don't you think
The abilities of Mankind are indeed quite puny when compared to the task of creating life.
Are you aware of the ARTIFICIAL CREATION of even ONE single living cell?0 -
Wicknight
Have you any idea the size of the computer systems used to model the earths weather? Does that mean the earths weather is intelligent?
There is a fundamental difference between the NON-SPECIFIED complexity of weather and the SPECIFIED complexity of life. Weather may require high capacity computers to MODEL it but DNA requires super computers to DECODE it.
Weather is caused by RANDOM processes but life is objectively the result of TIGHTLY SPECIFIED processes - and such processes DO require the appliance of intelligence.
Originally Posted by J C
Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
Wicknight
even if something is perfectly adapted to an environment, evolution is constantly happening because the environment is constantly changing
‘Imperfect’ creatures are quite capable of surviving and reproducing. Materialistic mechanisms cannot explain how the levels of perfection we observe in living creatures could be achieved or sustained by blind random processes (even with the assistance of N S).
Wicknight
Genetic mutation has been observed increasing genetic complexity. Besides that the vast majority of genetic mutations are harmless and simply do nothing, so where you got the ridiculous idea that all genetic mutations are lethal is beyond me!
Mutations are damaging to the genome and they produce their (bizarre and / or deleterious) effects as a result of this damage.
Yes, thankfully the vast majority of genetic mutations are harmless and simply do nothing – because they are masked by the dominant allele and/or are corrected by various back-up/checking mechanisms. Such back-up mechanisms indicate that a 'grand plan' is in place that determines what is 'ideal' for the organism concerned and this can also only be satisfactorily explained by the appliance of Intelligent Design.
Could I also suggest that a mechanism (like mutation) that doesn’t increase genetic information and that results in unchanged phenotypes most of the time is a pretty poor candidate to account for the Evolution of molecules to Man.
Originally Posted by J C
Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
Wicknight
Because the contiditions for simple biogensis (Earth 4 billion years ago) don't exist anymore, so simply living systems don't exist anymore. They all evolved or died. If you re-create the contitions in a lab you get biogensis again and simple self-replicating molecules.
If it cannot be observed it is NOT amenable to the Scientific Method.
Equally, the fact that SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules are observed today to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules IS in very serious contradiction of what one would expect if Evolution were true.
Originally Posted by J C
How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
Wicknight
Modern DNA requires pre-existence of other modern DNA. Who said it was like that 3 billion year ago?
You haven’t answered the question of how DNA could arise via undirected processes.
Could I also point out that the production of DNA is the least of the problems facing Evolutionists – the production of the enormous amounts of information stored by DNA also requires the application of enormous intelligence (on a God-like scale).
Originally Posted by J C
Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
Wicknight
We have.
We haven’t actually!!!
Originally Posted by J C
What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which most of the major animal and plant groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting ‘the evolutionary tree of life’
Wicknight
That isn't true. There are many transitional fossils in the cambrian period, that lasted between 5 and 40 million years. There were also fossils from complex life before the cambrian period.
There are NO transitional fossils in the entire fossil record.
The particular problem for the Cambrian section of the record, is that representative fossils of most of the major animal and plant groups suddenly appear together fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor thereby contradicting what one would expect if gradual Evolution were true.
Originally Posted by J C
Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection
Wicknight
It wasn't.
It was actually. Darwin’s Finches are one of the most often cited examples of 'Evolution in action' – when it is merely (reversible) Natural Selection in action.
Originally Posted by J C
Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations
Wicknight
It isn't
Mutation IS claimed to be the primary source of the diversity necessary for NS to eventually transform primordial molecules into Man over billions of years. The fact that mutations result in deleterious conditions most of the time rules it out as a possible mechanism to generate ‘upwards and onwards Evolution’.
Originally Posted by J C
Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident
Wicknight
Ah, and now we get to the route of the problem you have with evolution. You think it means you are not "special"
Sorry JC but your personal inferiority complex isn't really a reason to ignore the natural world around us is it now.
I don’t have any inferiority complex. You’re the guys claiming to be the direct lineal descendents of Pond Scum.
I know that I am descended from a man and a woman who were directly created by God - so why should I feel inferior?
Wicknight
Stop lying
It is a recurring theme on this thread that I am lying.
Such unfounded accusations are not allowed in all reputable debating fora and I don’t see why they should be tolerated on this Forum either.
Such accusations are unproven and indeed unprovable and they are therefore quite pointless.
As a fallible Human Being, I may be MISTAKEN in some of my beliefs or facts but I am certainly not lying about them.
I know that any mistakes will be rapidly pointed out - so there is every incentive for me to avoid mistakes and certainly no reason to lie!!0 -
Advertisement
-
Lame, JC. Very lame.‘Naming and shaming’ your academic achievements, eh!!!
Sounds like a rather counter-productive activity on any thread
- and a completely irrelevant activity on the Christianity Forum!!!
This is the single most ridiculous thing you have ever said JC.(1)God (2)Doesn’t need to exist (3)Can be objectively proven to exist (4)Can be objectively proven to exist.
What experiment can be preformed which shows the existence of God?
What are we measuring? God's mass? Perhaps his spin?
Come on JC, even you must see how inherently moronic that is.
Again with the word superior. Evolution does not make value judgements.(1)Nature of Mankind (2)Quantitatively superior to animals (3)Qualitatively distinct from animals (4)Qualitatively distinct from animals.
Evolution presumes beneficial mutations occur, not their frequencies among general mutations.(1)Mutations (2)Nearly always Beneficial (3)Nearly always Harmful (4)Nearly always Harmful.
Ah, JC, come on. Where has anybody said that Stars improve? Citation please.(1)Structure of Stars (2)Stars changing into other improved types (3)Stars Unchanged or dying (4)Stars Unchanged or dying.
Standard Stellar theory says that a main sequence star will become a Red-SuperGiant, however a Red-Super Giant is not superior.
This is "Not even wrong". It is too vague and ill-posed to discuss, what do you mean by changing? With reference to what element of their structure?(1)Galactic Universe (2)Galaxies Changing (3)Galaxies Constant (4)Galaxies Constant.
More importantly, a lot of what you list there is Cosmological theory not Evolution.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement