Jump to content


A Creationist Approach To Biology?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:32 AM

Yes, that's very interesting. The common designer put similar provisions in the two for adaptation purposes for a common environment. Is there a problem?


So why do whales have lungs and not gills?

#62 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:33 AM

You don't need complete sequences to infer genetic bottlenecking or derive genetic relationships between species.

View Post


By infer and derive you mean produce the fairytale, right?

[godtube]45ea15a3096c765bf392[/godtube]

#63 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:42 AM

By infer and derive you mean produce the fairytale, right?


Nope, I mean infer and derive, just what I said.

What I find really odd about your reaction to all this is that you seem to accept phylogenetic analysis for say, Canidae, but then turn around and reject it for say, Mammals in general. It's the same analysis, same metholodies, same inferences just at a broader level.

Like I said before, a designer could easily creator genetic chimeras that would completely violate everything we know about relationships of species via phylogenetic analysis. Cetaceans (whales) are the most genetically related to Artiodactyla (i.e. hippos, camels, deer, etc). Yet all else being constant, if a designer had given whales fish gills instead of mammalian lungs, this would turn evolutionary origins of whales on its ear.

I don't know if you fully appreciate the implications of what I just wrote has for evolutionary theory, but when I consider what a designer could have done compared to what they supposedly did do (according to you), then it seems to me they wanted us to conclude evolutionary relationships of species.

#64 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:42 AM

So why do whales have lungs and not gills?

View Post


To make your theory look like a fairytale. I think odd organisms, are the evolutionist’s problem not the creationist’s, like:

Whales
Butterflies
Venus Flytraps
Bombardier Beetles
and the list goes on and on and on... really it’s every organism on the planet and the planet itself and the Universe itself!

...are there to show God's glory and the plain willingly ignorant nature of people trying to reject God on intellectual grounds. There hasn't been a bend in the road of technology throughout mankind that Gods work wasn't staring the researchers in the face.

Shpongle, I hope you see soon that it isn't the evidence that's the problem. It's your philosophy that's vain and blinding.

#65 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:46 AM

To make your theory look like a fairytale. I think odd organisms, are the evolutionist’s problem not the creationist’s, like:

Whales


Find me a whale with gills and we'll have a problem for evolutionists. Until then...

#66 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:50 AM

Hi NowhereMan,

Nice name, what does it mean?


My neighbour was (irritatingly) banging out the Beatles' song on her piano when I joined the site.

Sure, according to your paper, you evolutionists know exactly when dogs and wolves shared a common ancestry, 15,000 to 100,000 years ago…
My neighbor had a half husky, half wolf when I was growing up. According to the statements above, its wolf ancestry was at least 15,000 years ago,...


No. When they say "the domestic dog" they are referring to a population group (obviously) and when they say "shared common ancestry" they are referring to a point when the two groups where one and indistinguishable. Frequent introduction of wolf genes into the dog group when it was small, and they would have effect, is likely over the 85,000 years. Once the group is large, the effect of occasional hybrids on the entire population is negligible. At 15,000 years, the domestic dog appears to have been large, and already very distinct from the wolves.

...(with an error window of plus 85,000 years) Wow! What precision.


The lack of precision is partially explained above, and is honest.

I have a feeling that my neighbor would have had proof that this minimum of 15,000 years is a smoke screen.


The feeling might be lessened by understanding that the paper is talking about a time when two population groups were one, not subsequent gene transfer when they were already distinct groups, don't you think?

The great thing about AiG is that it shows us all how science is so easy. All that the evolutionists can do is tell their fairytales, like this:
http://ccr.nci.nih.g...nature04338.pdf


NowhereMan, this is how I can tell people’s wires are getting crossed over this issue. Creationists talk about how evolution is a fairytale for adults and you hear us saying that we want to shut down Comparative Genomics. Listen, compare all the genes you want. It looks like a fascinating endeavor that I would be proud to be involved in. There are many useful things we can understand about God’s design through it (oops... that statement would probably find me blacklisted, no more genomics for me.) especially, when that which you are studying actually does have common ancestry like Dogs or People.

"Yes, but don't you see the commonalities between dogs and people..."

Yes, that's very interesting. The common designer put similar provisions in the two for adaptation purposes for a common environment. Is there a problem?


Apart from complete absence of evidence for the designer, you mean? Yes. Dogs and humans wouldn't show a cytochrome C relationship if they didn't have common ancestry, for a start. Any old cytochrome C would do for each, as others have explained to you on the cC thread.

Blacklisted? You'd probably become head of the human genome project, or some thing like that. :D http://en.wikipedia....ns_(geneticist)

Let’s take a look at a couple more quotes from that paper: (Page 804) "The genome sequence can be used to select a small collection of rapidly evolving sequences, which allows nearly complete resolution of the evolutionary tree of nearly all living species of Canidae.

This is great, low and behold, we can study common ancestry for organisms that actually have common ancestry, like dogs. This isn’t evolution, it’s dogs.


I assume that you mean "this isn't macroevolution", although I'd consider the divergence between all Canidae pretty macro myself. Interesting that you seem to put "kinds" on the level of families. Jason777 puts kinds as genera, which goes to show that convergent numerals in names do not equal convergent creationist theories. :D

(Page 809) "Gene duplications. Gene duplication is thought to contribute substantially to functional innovation."

This is a fancy way of saying; “We hope to prove how things became genetically complex, but until we have... just trust us, because we know there must be a natural mechanism that did it. I believe in evolution. I believe in evolution. I believe in evolution.”


Is it? They know that gene duplication contributes to functional innovation. The word "thought" relates to the word "substantial". As for natural mechanisms, what else do you expect as the cause of natural phenomena? Unnatural mechanisms?

(Page 815) "Resolving the evolutionary relationships of such closely related taxa has been difficult because a great quantity of genomic sequence is typically required to yield enough informative nucleotide sites for the unambiguous reconstruction of phylogenetic trees."

What would you say, currently, the phylogenetic trees beyond species/kinds are (you know the ones that tie Camels and Whales together) the ambiguous variety or the unambiguous kind?


Grouping mammals in general together is unambiguous, but describing their exact relationships completely unambiguously requires more research of the type that these people are doing, and that you, as a lover of truth, will of course support. :)

#67 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:50 AM

Find me a whale with gills and we'll have a problem for evolutionists.  Until then...

View Post


No you wouldn't. Evolutionists are wonderful tale spinners. I'm sure Richard Dawkins or Eugene Scott would have no problem explaining through evolutionary stories why such an organism existed. They would at least find the funding to do the research. :D

#68 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:56 AM

. Interesting that you seem to put "kinds" on the level of families. Jason777 puts kinds as genera, which goes to show that convergent numerals in names do not equal convergent creationist theories. :D


Ain't that the truth. I would have thought creationists would have worked out a consistent definition of "kind" by now, especially if it's so fundamental to what they believe about biology.

#69 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:15 AM

No you wouldn't. Evolutionists are wonderful tale spinners. I'm sure Richard Dawkins or Eugene Scott would have no problem explaining through evolutionary stories why such an organism existed. They would at least find the funding to do the research.  :D

View Post


In all honesty, the only way that whales could possess gills from an evolutionary standpoint is:

1) Some sort of convergent evolution, however any similarity between fish gills and whales gills would likely be superficial. Underlying anatomy and certainly underlying genetic structure would be unique. For example, whale flippers and fish fins are a sort of convergent evolution. Yet, the underlying skeletal structure of whale flippers show far more in common with other mammals (yes, even us) than fish fins. This is what you'd expect from an evolutionary standpoint if whales descended from land mammals.

2) Sort sort of re-activation of dormant genetic code left over from original aquatic ancestry going back much further (we're talking original descendents of all land animals). However, you would expect to find the same code in all species of land animals (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals). There would have to be a genetic "breadcrumb" trail of sorts in all the different species.

In both cases, however, there would be clear genetic evidence of such scenarios.

However, if you were to find about the same genetic code to produce gills that fish have and this code was unique to whales and fish (i.e. not shared by other mammals), this would be a clear example of a genetic chimera. It would completely violate almost everything we know about common descent and would be the perfect example of what creationists could expect to find from a design point of view. Yet, to my knowledge, there is no such example of any genetic chimeras. Which, conversely, is exactly what you'd expect from an evolutionary point of view. So again, either life evolved or life was designed to look like it evolved.

#70 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:25 AM

Apart from complete absence of evidence for the designer, you mean? Yes.


Yes, I hear this mantra frequently. There is no evidence for God because the evolutionists have stolen it all and they won't let God have it back!

NoWhereMan, the evidence looks fine to me, it's your philosophy classes and the post-modern culture around you that has pulled wool over your eyes.

Dogs and humans wouldn't show a cytochrome C relationship if they didn't have common ancestry, for a start.


Why not? Are we really all that sure? Could similar patterns and divergences occur in tandem? With all the accepted assumptions that are presented as fact, I have a feeling we may not be looking at things with such clarity as you think. Any possibility of that? We're talking apple and oranges, whales and camels, no relationship whatsoever. :D

Any old cytochrome C would do for each, as others have explained to you on the cC thread.

View Post


Fred Williams and the creationists on that thread did a great job showing the blind faith of evolutionists. I for one would be proud to show that thread to anyone as evidence for the faith of the evolutionist and their fairytale.

Here's a radio broadcast that Fred talks about that thread:

http://www.kgov.com/...56kbps/20080307

I hope you give it a listen, it's only 30 minutes.

#71 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:29 AM

Ain't that the truth.  I would have thought creationists would have worked out a consistent definition of "kind" by now, especially if it's so fundamental to what they believe about biology.

View Post


Yeah, silly creationists, you would think their definition of "kinds" would be at least as good as our definition of "species". :D

#72 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:35 AM

Fred Williams and the creationists on that thread did a great job showing the blind faith of evolutionists. I for one would be proud to show that thread to anyone as evidence for the faith of the evolutionist and their fairytale.


Pffft, I wouldn't. The tree I calculated based on the data given was remarkably in line with what we expect based on what we know of common descent of modern species (yes, including the location of whales on the tree). If the tree had been a lot more random you might have a point. But I don't see how anyone can construe that thread as a "victory" for creationism. I mean, you talk about straining at gnats... :D

#73 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 05 December 2008 - 12:13 PM

Yes, I hear this mantra frequently. There is no evidence for God because the evolutionists have stolen it all and they won't let God have it back!

NoWhereMan, the evidence looks fine to me, it's your philosophy classes and the post-modern culture around you that has pulled wool over your eyes.
Why not? Are we really all that sure? Could similar patterns and divergences occur in tandem? With all the accepted assumptions that are presented as fact, I have a feeling we may not be looking at things with such clarity as you think. Any possibility of that? We're talking apple and oranges, whales and camels, no relationship whatsoever. ;)
Fred Williams and the creationists on that thread did a great job showing the blind faith of evolutionists. I for one would be proud to show that thread to anyone as evidence for the faith of the evolutionist and their fairytale.

Here's a radio broadcast that Fred talks about that thread:

http://www.kgov.com/...56kbps/20080307

I hope you give it a listen, it's only 30 minutes.

View Post


I find it interesting that a Christian would use the word "faith" as though it's a bad thing, as you seem to above. I turned on the beginning of one of Fred's broadcasts, and he was describing evolution as a "religion", seeming to imply that religion is a bad thing. Also you, as a committed supernaturalist, use the word fairytale constantly in a manner that implies that supernaturalism is silly, or wrong.

This is all very odd. Fairies are invisible supernatural beings, and it is not evolutionists who include such things in our view of the origins of species, is it?

Evolutionists haven't taken away any evidence for any of the many gods of the many religions. You credit us with superhuman genius. It is impossible to remove what was never there.

#74 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 12:18 PM

I find it interesting that a Christian would use the word "faith" as though it's a bad thing, as you seem to above.

View Post


I think faith is great if it's based in the truth.

Faith - The substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

However, what you're doing is claiming your faith while denying that it's faith. This is a little thing called; deception.

#75 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 05 December 2008 - 01:41 PM

I think faith is great if it's based in the truth.

Faith - The substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

However, what you're doing is claiming your faith while denying that it's faith. This is a little thing called; deception.

View Post


How do you find out truths by faith?

Your claim seems to be that evolutionary theory is not built on observations and evidence, but comes from the same evidenceless faith that religions are based on. Is that it?

Remember that our mechanisms, like mutation, selection and drift, can be observed in action. Do the Muslims observe their djinns, angels, and their Allah?

Do you think that we cannot discover the past by observations made in the present?

#76 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:45 PM

You don't need complete sequences to infer genetic bottlenecking or derive genetic relationships between species.

View Post

Darwin didn't have any sequences at all, and he managed to infer just fine without them. But such does not make a convincing case.

This is especially so, since in this context you're arguing in favour of permitting me to infer evidence that the animals came off the ark, which we all know you'd reject in the end. Rather tempting offer, but I prefer not to waste too much time.

#77 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:52 PM

Darwin didn't have any sequences at all, and he managed to infer just fine without them. But such does not make a convincing case.


Back in the day, scientists used morphologies to infer relationships. I'm talking about genetics and was very specific in my post.

This is especially so, since in this context you're arguing in favour of permitting me to infer evidence that the animals came off the ark, which we all know you'd reject in the end. Rather tempting offer, but I prefer not to waste too much time.

View Post


I think the fact that you guys are making all sorts of excuses to avoid doing any grunt work really shows the (lack of) confidence you have in your own ideas. If all contemporary species were derived from "kinds" of organisms from 4-5 thousand years ago, then

a ) All contemporary species should demonstrate a consistent bottleneck about 4-5 thousands years ago.

b ) Contemporary species within "kind" groups should demonstrate common ancestry from 4-5 thousand years.

So where's the beef guys?

#78 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:10 PM

Your claim seems to be that evolutionary theory is not built on observations and evidence, but comes from the same evidenceless faith that religions are based on. Is that it?

View Post


No, Evolutionary theory is believed in spite of the mounting evidence against it. This is what is called Blind Faith. Our faith is based on the evidence. Faith is not the mechanism that gets you to truth. Faith is what you exercise when you have the Humility to see that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Remember, my definition? It’s right out of the Bible:

Faith – the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

Every time faith is exercised, the Biblical way, it is always, and I mean always this way. It's the eyes wide open variety of faith.

People who have faith in faith are lost. People who repent and have faith in the Truth (Jesus) are saved by grace.

God is not going to let you put Him in a test tube but He loves you enough to give signs no matter where you look. There is enough evidence all around us to condemn us for rejecting Him and there is enough evidence in the Bible to lead a man to salvation through repentance.

#79 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:13 PM

No, Evolutionary theory is believed in spite of the mounting evidence against it.


What evidence against it? Have you found some genetic chimeras you wish to share? Perhaps a whale with gills?

#80 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:21 PM

So where's the beef guys?


It does'nt matter how many times we show you examples of evolution occuring thousands of times faster than darwin predicted,you would just say "no it's not".

In doing so,all your doing is wasting your time and ours.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users