Jump to content


Photo

Hi Everyone


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 Archea

Archea

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Maryland

Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:31 AM

I don't see that natural laws have any separate existence.  That would make them independent of God.


How intertwined to you see God in natural laws and in this world? Obviously you see it more controlled than me, but do you feel that God is controlling every single sub-atomic particle, or is there a middle ground where you stand?

This is plain logic.  The restoration of the world involves the removal of predation (Isaiah) and of death itself (Revelation).  It is absolutely clear that death is an enemy and evil.  (Consider Jesus' deep emotion at the tomb of Lazarus.)  But the evolutionary view requires death and predation in the world from the very beginning, before man existed.  This is not good; but Genesis tells us that all that God created was very good.


In the evolutionary model death was here in the beginning. And obviously we perceive death as horrible. But at the same time many people realize that there is a time when all must die, and through this death we are released from our earthly bondage and take our place which the Lord shall command us to go, whether that be from heaven or hell. Basically, yes death is bad, but most people realize that death is also part of God's plan.

For a start, look at Tektonics.org under the heading "JEDP theory".  Also Christian Thinktank


Thanks, after midterms I'll check these sites out. :D

It is depressingly true that a large part of the church is so sunk in unbelief that they uncritically accept theories like this.  However, if you are a Christian, you presumably accept that Jesus is God.  He is your Lord and you are his slave.  Jesus accepted and endorsed the whole of the Pentateuch as the work of Moses, which is quite enough for me to reject the JEDP theory, without even looking at its obvious idiocies.

JEDP arose in Germany in a time of rampant unbelief.  It is part of an attitude to the bible that is an expression of humanistic ideas that put man in judgement over the scripture, rather than accepting them as the word of God.  Most of the traditional protestant churches ahve fallen victim to this attitude, so that they have become exemplars of those people whom the bible describes as "holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof". (2 Timothy 3:5)


After I look at the sites we'll be able to have more discussion on this topic, if that is okay with you.

How do you know this?  In such a system of thinking, how could someone write a plain factual account and have it understood that way?  I think this is an idea made up by people seeking an excuse not to believe the bible.  The obvious answer to "What does Genesis mean?" is that it means what it says.


I'm sorry I don't have any links or anything on this matter, this came from a talk with a religion professor a few years ago. But if someone wanted to write down a plain factual account they would write it in their history, not their sacred texts. Although there have been examples where cultures have taken factual accounts and embellished them and used them as figurative tools in sacred texts. The most famous example would be the Gilgamesh flood, or Noah's flood, since many people think that it is the same story. There is evidence that a natural dam broke and water rushed into the surrounding area destroying everything, killing thousands while dispersing even more people, and the times match up with when scholars think that the flood stories were recorded. Thus many people think that the flood stories were based off of real events that have been exaggerated in sacred texts to reveal truths to us.

The evidence certainly does support a straight reading of Genesis.  Evidence is data interpreted according to a set of presuppositions.  We presuppose that the bible is true; the evolutionist presupposes that it is false.  Which do you think the Christian should presuppose?


As I've stated with another person it is possible to believe in Jesus and accept evolution at the same time. With that being said obviously the Christian should see the bible as true, but not scientifically enlightening.


Since Revelation prophesies the downfall of human kingdoms, it became an embarrassment when the church turned itself into a part of the human system under Constantine.  Hence the development of amillennial interpretations, which fundamentally deny the content of scripture.  Most of the current institutional churches are inheritors of this state church idea and all the baggage that goes with it.


What are the amillennial interpretations and what do you mean when Constantine turned the church into a part of the human system?

Date-setting about the end times is a futile exercise, seeing that Jesus said that even he did not know the time.  Nevertheless, many have been deluded into prophesying exact dates and have universally been proved wrong.  However, Jesus told us to be aware of the signs of the times.  In view of those, we have good reason to expect his early return.


I agree with you completely on this matter. Date-setting is useless. I think setting a date for the end of times will only lead people further away from Christ, especially people that do not already believe. When the common person sees a Christian prophesying the end of the world in such and such date, and again and again nothing happens, it discredits the religion as being nothing more than superstition. At least that's what I see going on.

Peace be with you

#22 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 23 March 2009 - 05:07 AM

How intertwined to you see God in natural laws and in this world? Obviously you see it more controlled than me, but do you feel that God is controlling every single sub-atomic particle, or is there a middle ground where you stand?

No. I think God controls everything (while at the same time allowing for free will.)

In the evolutionary model death was here in the beginning. And obviously we perceive death as horrible. But at the same time many people realize that there is a time when all must die, and through this death we are released from our earthly bondage and take our place which the Lord shall command us to go, whether that be from heaven or hell. Basically, yes death is bad, but most people realize that death is also part of God's plan.

In a sinful world, death is, in a way a mercy. After Adam sinned, God barred the way to the tree of life. To have eternal life while being sinful would be to be without hope.

But the bible (not just us) describes death as an enemy and something bad that will be thrown into the lake of fire with the damned. Therefore it cannot be good; therefore if it was there at the beginning, the creation was not good.

...if someone wanted to write down a plain factual account they would write it in their history, not their sacred texts.

Israel's history is its sacred text. The books of the Pentateuch, Judges, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc are the history of Israel (though Chronicles takes a more theological view). The style of writing of the historical books is the same style as Genesis. There is no way to separate the history of Genesis from its theological content. The point is that God acts in history; the idea that you can separate the world into sacred and secular is a modern aberration.

...Noah's flood, since many people think that it is the same story. There is evidence that a natural dam broke and water rushed into the surrounding area destroying everything, killing thousands while dispersing even more people, and the times match up with when scholars think that the flood stories were recorded. Thus many people think that the flood stories were based off of real events that have been exaggerated in sacred texts to reveal truths to us.

Another word for exaggeration is lying.

The flood happened; there are millions upon millions of cubic miles of sediment to prove it. The whole story of the ark makes no sense in a limited flood. Yet the story of the ark is found worldwide, admittedly with various corruptions (such as Babylon's cubical ark).

As I've stated with another person it is possible to believe in Jesus and accept evolution at the same time. With that being said obviously the Christian should see the bible as true, but not scientifically enlightening.

While the bible is not a scientific textbook, it contains nothing false. The limited amount that it reveals on the natural world is true, or else God is a liar.

What are the amillennial interpretations and what do you mean when Constantine turned the church into a part of the human system?

View Post

Premillennial, postmillennial and amillennial refer to various interpretations of the thousand year reign of Christ on earth which is prophesied in Revelation 20 (six times). The premillennial interpretation follows the biblical text and says that Jesus will return before the millennium; the millennium is the kingdom of the Messiah in this world that was long since prophesied to Israel all through the Old Testament. The postmillennial view says that the millennium is the reign of the church on earth which is necessary before Christ can return (no biblical basis at all for this, as far as I can see). Amillennialism says that there will not be any millennium. Jesus will return at some unspecified time and immediately bring in the eternal state (of Rev 21); the millennium is merely the unspecified but long time of Christendom. This has the obvious disadvantage that it contradicts the bible's explicit teaching. It was possible because people like Origen had brought in a hyper-allegorical interpretation of scripture, that claimed to get spiritual truths out of texts that bore no apparent relation to the subject; along the way they conveniently discarded the plain meaning of texts they did not like, such as Romans 9-11 and Revelation.

When Constantine allegedly became a Christian he made Christianity a state religion. The title of pontifex maximus (pagan high priest) was given to the bishop of Rome and favours were given to bishops and elders. Very soon, Christianity became the state religion. Advancement in the church meant advancement in the state. Pagan temples were handed over for use as churches. Pagan practices invaded the church. The church became mostly worldly and corrupt.

#23 Archea

Archea

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Maryland

Posted 23 March 2009 - 07:31 AM

If Adam was figurative, so is Christ: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."


Again this can be taken figuratively, Adam is a reference to the fact that everybody sins (I think this conversation was with you), and through Christ we shall rise from our fallen state.

  If Genesis is open to reinterpretation on the basis of atheist beliefs about history. so are the gospels.  If creation did not happen as stated, why should you believe that the resurrection did?


I've always found most atheist interpretations to be 'God is a bronze-aged psycho killer', or something like that. But the reason for not taking a literal genesis are many. In short, it's not what all the combined evidence suggests. But the combined evidence for the resurrection shows that it must have happened.

Dr J.C. Sanford: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome
Sanford interview

View Post


I think that Sanford is flat out lying. In the review he makes several assertions that cannot be true.

First he states that one out of a million mutations are beneficial while all the others are harmful. Most mutations are neutral to the overall effectiveness of the DNA because of the redundant code; multiple codons code for the same protein. And the rest of the mutations are determined beneficial or not by their environment, there is no standard where you can say this mutation is good or bad.

Second he states that mutations are too subtle to be "selectable" , if this was the case than even the bad mutations are not selectable therefore bad mutations should not be a problem.

Third, mutations arise faster than can be selected. If this were true we could not breed anything with consistent results. We would not be able to select dogs for breeding purposes, same with bananas, wheat, corn and many other foods that over time humans have selected for breeding without the use of genetic altered plants. We have been doing this for hundreds of years, this would not be possible if Sanford is correct.

Fourth, survival of the luckiest outdoes selection. If this were true, all different variations of the same species just happened to randomly evolve into the better suited version to which they live. Take humans for example, according to this it is pure coincidence that Europeans have a mutation that makes them produce the enzyme lactase at high levels throughout their life where dairy products just so happen to be a major source of energy. While in other places where dairy products are not available, this mutation is not present and people start to decrease in the enzyme lactase after they stop breast feeding. (Lactase is the enzyme that breaks down lactose, a key ingredient in dairy products such as milk and cheese.) And there are many other examples that contradict the statement Sanford presents.

Lastly, he states that any good mutations present will be lost because the organism has mostly bad mutations and will die without any offspring. While it is possible that bad mutations in an organism can out way the beneficial, most mutations are neutral as stated above. Plus no one here will disagree that organisms have been passing down their genes for at least 6,000 years and some of them had to have survived. And any advantage that they could get will increase their chances of passing on their genes to the next generation.

If I, someone in introductory biology can show how his statements for his argument are false, imagine what someone with real knowledge can do to his arguments. There would be absolutely nothing left. I can easily see why the scientific community doesn't take his genetic degeneration model seriously. But thank you for showing me this article, I've never heard of him before or his experiments.

#24 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 23 March 2009 - 08:18 AM

If I, someone in introductory biology can show how his statements for his argument are false, imagine what someone with real knowledge can do to his arguments. There would be absolutely nothing left. I can easily see why the scientific community doesn't take his genetic degeneration model seriously. But thank you for showing me this article, I've never heard of him before or his experiments.

View Post

Well you can't. His book's been out for years now, and the response from the evolutionists has been zip. His arguments dare not be honestly addressed, mostly because doing so would entail disclosing them.

Don't think I'll be getting terribly involved debating in your welcome thread. I can guarantee nobody who's read the book would be fooled for a minute by junk attempting to masquerade as arguments.

#25 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 23 March 2009 - 08:32 AM

Again this can be taken figuratively, Adam is a reference to the fact that everybody sins (I think this conversation was with you), and through Christ we shall rise from our fallen state.

So you don't believe in the resurrection the way Paul does? If Christ has not been raised (physically) we are dead in our sins, he says. If our being raised with Christ is figurative it is not real.

But the reason for not taking a literal genesis are many. In short, it's not what all the combined evidence suggests. But the combined evidence for the resurrection shows that it must have happened.

Quite so. But the evidence for recent creation and the flood shows that it must have happened; and if it did not, then God is a liar.

I think that Sanford is flat out lying. In the review he makes several assertions that cannot be true.

I think that is a very reckless statement. This guy is a Professor of genetics who has studied this subject intensively, and you're a first-year and you want to tell him he's lying? I think the overwhelming odds are you don't understand the subject.

First he states that one out of a million mutations are beneficial while all the others are harmful. Most mutations are neutral to the overall effectiveness of the DNA because of the redundant code; multiple codons code for the same protein. And the rest of the mutations are determined beneficial or not by their environment, there is no standard where you can say this mutation is good or bad.

What Sanford said: 'Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

Mutations by their very nature destroy genomic information. Therefore all mutations lose information; this is almost by definition bad. In rare cases, that loss of information allows a species to survive better, as when a bacterial mutation makes it less vulnerable to antibiotics, but overall less well adapted in an environment without antibiotics. Good mutations that create new genetic information have [almost?] never been observed, so the chance of them must be far less than one in a million.

Second he states that mutations are too subtle to be "selectable" , if this was the case than even the bad mutations are not selectable therefore bad mutations should not be a problem.

Not selectable does not mean not a problem. To be selectable, a mutation must make a difference to reproductive success. In humans, for example, certain hereditary diseases, like a tendency to breast cancer, are not selectable because women have usually done their reproducing by the time they get cancer, and their children survive because they are looked after by other adults even if their mothers have died.

Therefore bad mutations can accumulate because only the worst -- the fatal or sterilising kind -- prevent further reproduction and are therefore selected out. The role of natural selection is indeed to keep the genetic stock as pure as possible, but it can only work on the basis of reproductive ability. It seems that there are multiple redundant genetic paths to various features; therefore loss of one of those paths does not necessarily destroy that ability. But the redundancy is decreased, and cumulative loss of redundancy can eventually lead to imperfect development or perhaps to complete loss. In S@xual reproduction, one may inherit a good gene from one parent and a bad one from the other. In that case, the good one tends to be used; but it is not necessarily passed on to your offspring; there's only a 50% chance of that. Indeed, inbreeding is a textbook demonstration of genetic deterioration, which you must see entirely disproves your assertion.

Third, mutations arise faster than can be selected. If this were true we could not breed anything with consistent results. We would not be able to select dogs for breeding purposes, same with bananas, wheat, corn and many other foods that over time humans have selected for breeding without the use of genetic altered plants. We have been doing this for hundreds of years, this would not be possible if Sanford is correct.

Wrong. If a feature is inherited from both parents, it must be present in the offspring. This is generally accomplished by a restricted gene pool. Genes for unwanted features are consistently removed by culling the individuals that express them. But along with that come the other disadvantages of inbreeding, such as canine hip dysplasia, which are bad mutations that are not being selected out.

Fourth, survival of the luckiest outdoes selection. If this were true, all different variations of the same species just happened to randomly evolve into the better suited version to which they live. Take humans for example, according to this it is pure coincidence that Europeans have a mutation that makes them produce the enzyme lactase at high levels throughout their life where dairy products just so happen to be a major source of energy. While in other places where dairy products are not available, this mutation is not present and people start to decrease in the enzyme lactase after they stop breast feeding. (Lactase is the enzyme that breaks down lactose, a key ingredient in dairy products such as milk and cheese.) And there are many other examples that contradict the statement Sanford presents.

Luck plays a major part. If an animal carrying a "good" mutation gets eaten before it breeds, that mutation will be lost. If it is a recessive gene, it may well be lost. If a good mutation is on the same gene as a bad mutation, the bad may get deselected and cause the good to be lost. There are circumstances, too, where the environment is a stronger influence. I speculate that the need for camouflage in snow is a very strong selector for white fur; bears without it were too noticeable to be able to catch enough to survive.

Lactase production, according to what you say yourself, continues while breast feeding continues. It seems highly probable that continued intake of milk products maintains it; since we do not generally stop drinking milk, we never lose it. This then would not be genetically but environmentally determined.

Lastly, he states that any good mutations present will be lost because the organism has mostly bad mutations and will die without any offspring. While it is possible that bad mutations in an organism can out way the beneficial, most mutations are neutral as stated above. Plus no one here will disagree that organisms have been passing down their genes for at least 6,000 years and some of them had to have survived. And any advantage that they could get will increase their chances of passing on their genes to the next generation.

He is not making a universal statement, that all good mutations must inevitably be lost. He is saying that they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by bad ones and that the chance of good ones' being perpetuated is very small. (That is even allowing that any good ones ever occur.) The operation of natural selection is not to improve genetic stock but to limit damage.

If I, someone in introductory biology can show how his statements for his argument are false, imagine what someone with real knowledge can do to his arguments. There would be absolutely nothing left. I can easily see why the scientific community doesn't take his genetic degeneration model seriously. But thank you for showing me this article, I've never heard of him before or his experiments.

View Post

Well, I think you overrate yourself here.

A final quote from Professor Sanford: ‘All of the problems with evolutionary theory, as outlined in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, have now been rigorously proven using numerical simulation. We did this using “Mendel’s Accountant”, a state-of-the-art computer analytical tool for genetic systems. Five scientists—John Baumgardner, Wes Brewer, Paul Gibson, Walter ReMine, and I—developed this tool. We reported these new findings in two secular publications, and they will soon be discussed in a second book, Genetic Entropy and Mendel’s Accountant.’

#26 Archea

Archea

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Maryland

Posted 23 March 2009 - 07:06 PM

Well you can't. His book's been out for years now, and the response from the evolutionists has been zip. His arguments dare not be honestly addressed, mostly because doing so would entail disclosing them.

Don't think I'll be getting terribly involved debating in your welcome thread. I can guarantee nobody who's read the book would be fooled for a minute by junk attempting to masquerade as arguments.

View Post


Fair enough, I will not expect you to vigorously debate this here. But if anyone who has read his book (I'm assuming several on this forum has?) can easily refute all my arguments as they are "junk arguments." I shall await and see. I might start a new thread on this, if so I hope you will join, even if it is for a short time. ;)

#27 Archea

Archea

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Maryland

Posted 23 March 2009 - 09:03 PM

So you don't believe in the resurrection the way Paul does?  If Christ has not been raised (physically) we are dead in our sins, he says.  If our being raised with Christ is figurative it is not real.


I didn't explain my position clearly and I apologize. The Adam part was figurative while the Christ part is not figurative.

Quite so.  But the evidence for recent creation and the flood shows that it must have happened; and if it did not, then God is a liar.


If you recall I stated earlier that there is more than one kind of truth, and that just because it does not happen literally doesn't mean there is no truth in it, or there is lies in it.

I think that is a very reckless statement.  This guy is a Professor of genetics who has studied this subject intensively, and you're a first-year and you want to tell him he's lying?  I think the overwhelming odds are you don't understand the subject.


I can tell he is lying because what he says does not make any sense from a scientific standpoint, or even a logical standpoint with a little bit of scientific knowledge. He is a person who has a real degree and has done real science, and to turn around and say these things show that he is lying. Does someones position make it so they cannot lie? If so at what position does this become in affect? And I do understand the subject, enough to tell that he is making BS up and show through science that some of the things he says does not coincide with facts that we have.

What Sanford said: 'Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’


Any word and language analogies are completely useless and false once you go beyond the elementary concept of DNA. Sanford knows this and you cannot use words as a way to understand or describe mutations. I do not know how much genetics you understand, and I apologize for saying anything you already know. The basic nucleotides: T, A, G, and C. In RNA the T is switched with U. DNA transcribes itself to RNA. In the RNA three nucleotides together makes a codon. These codons then make proteins. What is essential to the process are the codons. Fortunately codons are redundant (ie. multiple codons code for the same protein). If a mutation happens, there is a chance that nothing will happen to the over all organism. And in-fact most of the mutations are neutral, meaning that the mutation does not change the chemical makeup of the person. And even if it did there is a good chance that the environment will not even affect the outcome, making it neutral. The average person has around 120 mutations, if each one were bad we would have all been dead after a thousand years of breeding.


Mutations by their very nature destroy genomic information.  Therefore all mutations lose information; this is almost by definition bad.  In rare cases, that loss of information allows a species to survive better, as when a bacterial mutation makes it less vulnerable to antibiotics, but overall less well adapted in an environment without antibiotics.  Good mutations that create new genetic information have [almost?] never been observed, so the chance of them must be far less than one in a million.


How are mutations by their very nature destroying genetic information? And what do you mean by genetic information? The consensus with the scientific community is that mutations are not all-across the board bad, and there are very few mutations that would actually be harmful to the organism no matter the environment. Many of these bad bad mutations are based on whether or not these mutations are beneficial, harmful or neutral in the environment in which they live.


Wrong.  If a feature is inherited from both parents, it must be present in the offspring.  This is generally accomplished by a restricted gene pool.  Genes for unwanted features are consistently removed by culling the individuals that express them.  But along with that come the other disadvantages of inbreeding, such as canine hip dysplasia, which are bad mutations that are not being selected out.


Your above post implies that we can select animals for breeding and get the desired results, this goes against what Sanford had told us. Either you have joined me in realizing that Sanford is wrong, or you might have miss wrote your position. If this is what you meant to write please note and be aware that this goes against what Sanford has implied, whether you like it or not.


Luck plays a major part.  If an animal carrying a "good" mutation gets eaten before it breeds, that mutation will be lost.  If it is a recessive gene, it may well be lost.  If a good mutation is on the same gene as a bad mutation, the bad may get deselected and cause the good to be lost.  There are circumstances, too, where the environment is a stronger influence.  I speculate that the need for camouflage in snow is a very strong selector for white fur; bears without it were too noticeable to be able to catch enough to survive.


Luck does play a role in whether in organisms gets to reproduce or not. But many organisms produce a multitude of young, so luck is somewhat diminished by this, and a beneficial mutation is more likely to survive because of this than not. And once a recessive gene is in the population, it is very hard to get ride of that recessive gene in the population.

Lactase production, according to what you say yourself, continues while breast feeding continues.  It seems highly probable that continued intake of milk products maintains it; since we do not generally stop drinking milk, we never lose it.  This then would not be genetically but environmentally determined.


Afraid not, this is all genetics, no environmental factors here. The condition described is lactose intolerance, pure genes. If Sanford is right about luck and mutations happening so fast that no selection is possible, this is one thing that evolution clearly explains but genetic deterioration does not.

Most non-Europeans have this deficiency and it is actually the norm among humans. Those with European decent are very likely to have this mutation where their lactase levels are high through out their lives, but they do decrease some as they get older.

He is not making a universal statement, that all good mutations must inevitably be lost.  He is  saying that they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by bad ones and that the chance of good ones' being perpetuated is very small.  (That is even allowing that any good ones ever occur.)  The operation of natural selection is not to improve genetic stock but to limit damage.


Again most mutations are neutral to the organism for various reasons. And natural selection is a force that drives evolution to create the most fit organism for that specific environment.

Well, I think you overrate yourself here.


Perhaps you underrate me, and in time we will meet in the middle.


On a final note to this post I noticed that someone, I cannot recall their name, said that because the scientific community did not rebuttal Sanford's claim that it must all be true, and the scientific community is hiding form this new research. However I just want to say that scientists that do research do not spend their time looking for those who are wrong about science and rebuttal everything that is wrong about their model, because they simply do not have time. And many see it as if they accept any challenge that they are recognizing that this model or theory is a possible contender in the world of science, and since the vast majority of scientists conclude that creation science is not science they do not feel the need to establish it as one. This is not an attack in any way shape or form, just how main stream scientists view creation science and why many of them will not debate with a creationist.

#28 Archea

Archea

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Maryland

Posted 23 March 2009 - 09:40 PM

Sorry CTD, I just could not recall who told me that. The last part of the above post was not meant for you in particular, just creationists in general. I'm sure many agree with your position on that matter, and I just wanted to show that there is another side to the story.

#29 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 March 2009 - 05:14 AM

:rolleyes:

All I'm asking is that you use terms like evolution correctly. In your previous post you suggested to me that evolution must explain how life was created which is doesn't. I've seen people use evolution to mean exactly what it means to almost every theory man has come up with and more, and just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.


The definition of evolution changes every 6 months to add a new thought up variable. Dictionaries cannot agree on it's definition, and most scientific sites cannot either. Show me an absolute definition on evolution that you can absolutely claim will never change? You cannot. So how can a person use the term evolution correctly when the people who thought it up cannot even agree?

It's like human evolution. For the longest it was claimed that man evolved from Chimps. Now it's: They have a common ancestor. Like it's now Taboo to say man evolved from Chimps.

Speaking of which. Have a question for you. Between human and chimps, do you know what the actual number is of the 1% DNA difference? To get the one percent, you have to have a number to work with, right? Search for this number in your college text books. You won't find it. Do you know why? The actual number the 1% comes from is so big, it actually proves evolution wrong. If not, explain in detail why it is okay to sell people on the 1%, and never give the actual number?

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different fields of scientific study, although they are closely related, they are different and if one turns out not to be true, it does not affect the credibility of the other, each stand on their own merit. I cannot find where I imply otherwise in my post, but if I did I made a mistake.


So if abiogenesis was proven wrong, evolution could stand on it's own even though there would be no explaination for life coming from life-less matter?

There are no absolutes in science. Only models that describe what we see and how it happens. If you were to ask a scientist, "do you believe in evolution?" they would most likely respond by saying, "I accept that evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have." I myself would reply with something very similar. Every single evolutionist would abandon the theory of evolution if another theory came along that could explain the evidence better. So far that has not happened.


And guess what? It "NEVER" will happen. Do you know why? Think really hard about all the investment of time and money. All the millions and billions of dollars spent on movies and animation. All the papers written. All the books printed. A whole bunch of the smartest people in the world lining up to admit they were wrong. Do you actually know how much damage proving that one theory wrong would do to science? Evolution is 80-90% of what science is. You just cannot kick out that huge of a percent of science and still expect it to survive.

The reason science gets funding id because people believe in the worthyness of it and it's research. Now think of what would happen tothe credibility of science in the people's minds if they found out that 80-90% of their tax money went to proving a known lie? Science would be destroyed. All scientists credibility destroyed. All their jobs lost. All thier funding gone.

Now can science actually afford to even allow evolution to be proven wrong? Nope. To much at stake. So it becomes a propaganda type deal where the theory most stay in place at any cost. Why do you think that "ANY" evidence that comes up against it is not really scientifically debunked. Instead the credibility of the people involved is destroyed so that the evidence is tainted so that science cannot even be applied to it.

In fact name one piece of evidence that has ever come up against evolution that the messenger of that evidence was not totally destroyed through his or her credibility being attacked? you can't because this method is the "ONLY" way evolution can remain dominate.

Need an example?
Attached File  enhanced_footprint3.jpg   46.01KB   18 downloadsAttached File  BBC_footprint.jpg   26.88KB   42 downloads

Name 5 things that were done to disprove the evidence on the left, that does not involve someone's credibility being destroyed? Which by the way this evidence destroys evolution totally. In fact name one claim on debunking this evidence that ever panned out? Now the evidence on the right conforms to the accepted theory. No one's credibility was ever destroyed upon finding it. But which evidence is more clear and convincing if you were to judge the actually quality of it? The left because the human foot print can be clearly seen next to the dinosaur print. There can be no mistake.

So basically the evidence was never allowed to stand on it's own merit. It was never allowed to guide anyone in any direction like evidence is supposed to so that a conclusion can be made. Instead the evidence was destroyed by false accusations of the people who found it. None of which even panned out. None.

The person who discovered this was accused of sneaking out in the middle of the night and carving it. Even though no witness was ever produced. And case never went to court because defacing government owned property is a federal offense. Then the person who found this had his background looked up, and basically destroyed his credibility using it. While all along the evidence sat where it was found and no effort was ever made to preserve it. The weather eventually destroyed it, and then the whole thing was swept under the rug. But pictures don't weather.

Explain the science of how this evidence was debunked?
Show me where these actions are wirtten anywhere in the scientific method?

You cannot because the methods used were used to protect the accepted theory. Not to follow the evidence. Everyone knew where following the evidence would lead. And what kinds of conclusions would be made. To much effort and money had already been invested in disproving God. This evidence was not going to destroy that, and they made sure of it.

#30 Archea

Archea

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Maryland

Posted 24 March 2009 - 10:29 PM

The definition of evolution changes every 6 months to add a new thought up variable. Dictionaries cannot agree on it's definition, and most scientific sites cannot either. Show me an absolute definition on evolution that you can absolutely claim will never change? You cannot. So how can a person use the term evolution correctly when the people who thought it up cannot even agree?


No scientific theory is set in stone. That's because theory are subjected to change with new evidence that is found. This is why there is no absolute, unchanging theory of evolution. But the basic essence of evolution is probably not going to change. And the fact that theories change should not get in the way of conversation about it and using the terms correctly.

It's like human evolution. For the longest it was claimed that man evolved from Chimps. Now it's: They have a common ancestor. Like it's now Taboo to say man evolved from Chimps.


I've never heard this claim from any scientist, before Darwin we had the concept that species change overtime, but we didn't have a mechanism to understand how they change. Darwin gave us the concept of that mechanism, natural selection with evolution. And again as new evidence comes up, scientific theories are subjected to change.

Speaking of which. Have a question for you. Between human and chimps, do you know what the actual number is of the 1% DNA difference? To get the one percent, you have to have a number to work with, right? Search for this number in your college text books. You won't find it. Do you know why? The actual number the 1% comes from is so big, it actually proves evolution wrong. If not, explain in detail why it is okay to sell people on the 1%, and never give the actual number?


What do you mean by the "actual number"? the number of nucleotides that are different? Codons? Proteins? What? And how does this prove evolution wrong? Evolution says that we had a common ancestor like 5 million years ago or something. Flies and chickens had a common ancestor a few hundred million years ago. The further the common ancestor is the greater the genetic difference is.

So if abiogenesis was proven wrong, evolution could stand on it's own even though there would be no explaination for life coming from life-less matter?


Yes, evolution does not say anything about how life was created, only what happens after it is created. Abiogenesis deals with how life was created, not what happens to it afterwords. The two are not dependent on each other.


The reason science gets funding id because people believe in the worthyness of it and it's research. Now think of what would happen tothe credibility of science in the people's minds if they found out that 80-90% of their tax money went to proving a known lie? Science would be destroyed. All scientists credibility destroyed. All their jobs lost. All thier funding gone.


LOL, the scientific research money from the U.S. government is very very low, so much that many of the scientists are leaving the U.S. for other countries that are more science friendly. If you think that 80% of the government money is going to science you are either lying or seriously misinformed.

I will not debate this subject but the majority of the U.S. budget goes into the war and military in general. And if you want to include war technology into the science budget, well that part of science has nothing to do with evolution anyway.

Now can science actually afford to even allow evolution to be proven wrong? Nope. To much at stake. So it becomes a propaganda type deal where the theory most stay in place at any cost.


Of course. If there is a scientific theory that can explain the evidence and facts better than evolution than it will increase our knowledge of the world greatly. And if evolution is proven wrong, it will have no bearing on anything other than evolution. It will change the way we think, obviously, but any theory that can do better than evolution would be welcomed by the scientific community.

Why do you think that "ANY" evidence that comes up against it is not really scientifically debunked. Instead the credibility of the people involved is destroyed so that the evidence is tainted so that science cannot even be applied to it.


Because scientists are too busy doing research and contributing to the peer review section of science to debunk every claim made. And if creationists do honest scientific research they can submit it to the peer review section and if their claims turn out to be true they will be accepted, and if they prove creation they will probably win a nobel prize.

In fact name one piece of evidence that has ever come up against evolution that the messenger of that evidence was not totally destroyed through his or her credibility being attacked? you can't because this method is the "ONLY" way evolution can remain dominate.


As far as I know, no respected scientist has presented claims destroying evolution that wasn't a lie. After a person deceives the scientific community like this, their credibility is destroyed, it only takes one time for this to happen.

Need an example?
Attached File  enhanced_footprint3.jpg   46.01KB   18 downloadsAttached File  BBC_footprint.jpg   26.88KB   42 downloads


I cannot find anyone promoting or disproving this picture anywhere. I only found it on one other site that was set up like a thread, but it didn't say anything. I need something more than this to find anything on it.



The person who discovered this was accused of sneaking out in the middle of the night and carving it.


That is because every single case like this that was presented to the scientific community has been debunked and it turns out that is exactly what has happened.

A court of law is different than a peer review section in the scientific literature. What was this court case called and what was the verdict?


Explain the science of how this evidence was debunked? 
Show me where these actions are wirtten anywhere in the scientific method?

I cannot do anything with this picture because I have nothing to go on. No one on either side has presented this as evidence that I can find.

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 March 2009 - 05:41 AM

No scientific theory is set in stone. That's because theory are subjected to change with new evidence that is found. This is why there is no absolute, unchanging theory of evolution. But the basic essence of evolution is probably not going to change. And the fact that theories change should not get in the way of conversation about it and using the terms correctly.


Well then, if it's not set in stone then neither one of us is right, correct? A forever changing alleged truth can never be true because it never stays the same. It like goal post moving during a debate. You can always look like you winning if you change the goal of the debate every time someone gets close to proving you wrong.

I've never heard this claim from any scientist, before Darwin we had the concept that species change overtime, but we didn't have a mechanism to understand how they change. Darwin gave us the concept of that mechanism, natural selection with evolution. And again as new evidence comes up, scientific theories are subjected to change.


An excuse is an untruth that is cloaked in reason. A theory is an never ending excuse for never wanting truth because actual truth never has to be found. That is why absolutes do not exist in science because an absolute truth can never be found in science. And using that same logic, you can never claim that someone is an absolute liar because it takes absolute truth to do that.

What do you mean by the "actual number"? the number of nucleotides that are different? Codons? Proteins? What? And how does this prove evolution wrong? Evolution says that we had a common ancestor like 5 million years ago or something. Flies and chickens had a common ancestor a few hundred million years ago. The further the common ancestor is the greater the genetic difference is.
Yes, evolution does not say anything about how life was created, only what happens after it is created. Abiogenesis deals with how life was created, not what happens to it afterwords. The two are not dependent on each other.


Okay, I'll play your dumb game (I don't understand what your asking). Base pairs. Clear enough for you? In fact you just answered the question I asked by having to ask what you just did. If you knew what the 1% difference actually was about, you would have never had to ask. So this shows that you don't even know what part of the DNA the 1% applies to.

So you believe in a theory that you don't even know what the 1% applies to?

But see if you can find that number. You should already know it if evolution was more forth coming in their information.

LOL, the scientific research money from the U.S. government is very very low, so much that many of the scientists are leaving the U.S. for other countries that are more science friendly. If you think that 80% of the government money is going to science you are either lying or seriously misinformed.


Where does the millions and billions of dollars for NASA come from? How many science research departments branch off of that? Currently the US is in a economic crisis. I still see the shuttles going up. We must fix the space station, and at what cost each time that shuttle goes up? There are whole families being thrown out on the streets because they can no longer pay for their house. Maybe they should go live at NASA? Laugh it up, but as people starve and watch billions of dollars go up in smoke, what do you think they are thinking? That shuttle is more important than my child's life? Nope. People start to see reality when they are forced to face reality. So laugh all you want.

I will not debate this subject but the majority of the U.S. budget goes into the war and military in general. And if you want to include war technology into the science budget, well that part of science has nothing to do with evolution anyway.


So when bio-weapons are made, not one scientist there relies on evolution information as he creates death? I guess people don't die from chemically "mutated" cells. :o

Of course. If there is a scientific theory that can explain the evidence and facts better than evolution than it will increase our knowledge of the world greatly. And if evolution is proven wrong, it will have no bearing on anything other than evolution. It will change the way we think, obviously, but any theory that can do better than evolution would be welcomed by the scientific community.
Because scientists are too busy doing research and contributing to the peer review section of science to debunk every claim made. And if creationists do honest scientific research they can submit it to the peer review section and if their claims turn out to be true they will be accepted, and if they prove creation they will probably win a Nobel prize.


O yes. The peer review excuse and the Noble Prize excuse used all at one time. Scientific peer reviews are done by atheist who do not want God to be proven. So the bias starts even before a paper on creation is even read.

And as far as a creationist ever getting the Nobel Prize. Dr. Raymond Damadian developed the technology, the nuclear magnetic resonance ("NMR"), the MRI. But was denied the Nobel Prize because he was a creationist. How many lives has this technology saved, and the person who came up with it is denied the Nobel Prize because of what he believes?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IaVLlFWCs8M&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IaVLlFWCs8M&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Now why give a prize to the people who helped Dr. Raymond Damadian, but deny the actual inventor of it? Bias.

As far as I know, no respected scientist has presented claims destroying evolution that wasn't a lie. After a person deceives the scientific community like this, their credibility is destroyed, it only takes one time for this to happen.


So your answer is no? Thought so. Disproving the evidence is allowing the evidence to stand on it's own merit. The scientific method does not say anywhere to attack the messenger of the evidence. But you dodged all that. Nice. Not answering the question shows that you know it's true. And that you actually approve of the total destruction of someone's life just because they came against the beloved theory.

I cannot find anyone promoting or disproving this picture anywhere. I only found it on one other site that was set up like a thread, but it didn't say anything. I need something more than this to find anything on it.
That is because every single case like this that was presented to the scientific community has been debunked and it turns out that is exactly what has happened.


So you again cannot prove anything?

A court of law is different than a peer review section in the scientific literature. What was this court case called and what was the verdict?


I believe because you cannot really answer my questions, you act stupid. The point is that the case never happened because all accusations were false. Understand? The evidence was debunked by gossip and hearsay.

I cannot do anything with this picture because I have nothing to go on. No one on either side has presented this as evidence that I can find.

View Post


http://images.google...dinosaur tracks

#32 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 25 March 2009 - 05:03 PM

If Adam was figurative, so is Christ: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."

The problem with theistic evolution is that it cuts off the branch on which it sits.  You cannot know anything about God, except his bare existence, without his revelation about himself, which we have in the scripture.  But that means that we have to accept the scripture as reliable.  If we don't, if we say that part of it is mythical/symbolic when its style denies that, we are effectively saying that no part of the bible is reliable.  If Genesis is open to reinterpretation on the basis of atheist beliefs about history. so are the gospels.  If creation did not happen as stated, why should you believe that the resurrection did?

Dr J.C. Sanford: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome
Sanford interview

View Post

*
I wonder if I might interject something which may at 1st sight seem a beside the point observation, I make it because of the intense anger and frustration that I see atheists expressing at the seeming to them of the simplistic faith christians have in God's word in the bible.
The point I want to make is that christians discover God's word as the truth through a reverse mechanism i.e they don't discover it first by reading genesis but by coming to Christ through a good news message, In my case the word that God made especially alive to me was "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, and today and forever." hebrews. ch.13. vs. 8. for others it may be for e.g. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that who-so-ever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John ch.3. v. 16.
It is these words of God which when we do come to Jesus we find to our absolute delight are true.
It is by having proved by experience that these words are true that we come to believe the bible is indeed true in all it's other parts. This is also why our faith is rock solid and unassailable [providing we are truly saved] and makes the christian seem narrow minded and bigotted. But well friends if you have diamonds all the nay saying in the world will be able to convince you that diamonds do not exist. And the faith we have is more tangiable to us than diamonds, diamonds you may hold in your hand but Jesus dwells in our very hearts.
If I am off topic I accept your admonishment in advance. :)

#33 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 25 March 2009 - 05:43 PM

It is by having proved by experience that these words are true that we come to believe the bible is indeed true in all it's other parts.

View Post

Yes, that's my experience.

I believed on the basis of hearing the gospel. (Not one particular verse, in my case.)

At that stage I didn't realise what an impact that would have on all my thinking, though I seem to recall writing very different philosophy essays from that point on. But realising that God is true meant that I had to accept everything he said as true. So I then accepted Genesis as true without any idea of how to reconcile it with science. It was only later that I read The Genesis Flood and discovered that the evidence wasn't all in favour of naturalism and long ages.

But if I hadn't believed God I would never have got there; and I don't know whether a faith struggling with unbelief would have survived.

A lot of the energy driving the nineteenth century materialists was their dogmatic assertion that miracles can't happen (based on a determination by many to put God out of the picture). That is certainly true of people like Dawkins. But that is the foundation of evolutionary thinking: miracles don't happen, therefore creation couldn't have happened, therefore whatever story we can make up without creation has got to be better. Whether they realise it or not, that is the position that theistic evolutionists are going along with.

#34 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 26 March 2009 - 01:44 AM

When Constantine allegedly became a Christian he made Christianity a state religion.  The title of pontifex maximus (pagan high priest) was given to the bishop of Rome and favours were given to bishops and elders.  Very soon, Christianity became the state religion.  Advancement in the church meant advancement in the state.  Pagan temples were handed over for use as churches.  Pagan practices invaded the church.  The church became mostly worldly and corrupt.

View Post

Interestingly, the first to claim the title of "pontifex maximus" was Julius Caesar. Well, actually he claimed that title before he claimed the title of "caesar".

#35 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:51 AM

Interestingly, the first to claim the title of "pontifex maximus" was Julius Caesar. Well, actually he claimed that title before he claimed the title of "caesar".

View Post

He wasn't the first. It was a very ancient office, probably going back to the beginning of the republic. I think it was held by the kings before that. It means "greatest bridgebuilder" - the idea is that the priest is the bridge between men and the gods.

Caesar won election to the post, which was held for life.

Oh, and Caesar was his cognomen - the name of his branch of the family. Later it became an imperial title (from which came Tsar in Russia and Kaiser in Germany).

#36 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 March 2009 - 04:47 AM

He wasn't the first.  It was a very ancient office, probably going back to the beginning of the republic.  I think it was held by the kings before that.  It means "greatest bridgebuilder" - the idea is that the priest is the bridge between men and the gods.

Caesar won election to the post, which was held for life.

Oh, and Caesar was his cognomen - the name of his branch of the family.  Later it became an imperial title (from which came Tsar in Russia and Kaiser in Germany).

View Post


The following is an exerpt from http://www.newworlde...ontifex_Maximus :

The Pagan Pontifices

Origins during the Regal Period


The Collegium Pontificum (College of Pontiffs) was the most important priesthood of ancient Rome. The foundation of this sacred college is attributed to the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius. It is safe to say that the collegium was tasked to act as advisers of the rex (king) in all matters of religion. The collegium was headed by the pontifex maximus and all the pontifices held their office for life. Prior to its institution, all religious and administrative functions and powers were naturally exercised by the king. Very little is known about this period of Roman history regarding the pontiffs as the main historical sources are lost and some of the events from this period are regarded as semi-legendary or mythical. Most of the records of ancient Rome were destroyed when it was sacked by the Gauls in 390 B.C.E. Accounts from this early period come from excerpts of writings made during the Republican Period.


I just thought it would enhance the conversation :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users