Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Evolutists Persist?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#21 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 25 April 2010 - 08:07 PM

Thanks AFJ

Right now I am comfortable doing my own thing for God... Basically be a nice person, and try to do my best.

Who knows, I may one day return to the fold... However it will be in my own time.

View Post


Welcome Gilbo to the forums. Your questions remind me a lot of... well... me at that age, only nowhere near as informed. :)

It's refreshing to see a 24 year old approach this debate with questions and reasoned observation from study, rather than repeat what they read or heard Mr.Parks say in biology class about the subject.

As far as your experience with God, I am quite certain that as you delve deeper into your scientific and biological studies, you'll start to see His fingerprints everywhere you look. It's really not that hard to miss and you don't even have to be a student of science to see them. ;)

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 April 2010 - 08:26 PM

Thanks Seth

Yeah, I was watching a debate about the existence of God.. William Lane Craig is really great!

Yeah, I have always kinda known that there is a diving force behind creation. Evidence of this is the complexity of life.. Randomness can never create a masterpiece of art... (unless you are into "abstract" art..lol)... nor can it create an exciting novel.. These things are created by people with intelligence, yet they are so much less-complicated than life itself.

So how can we give random chance so much credit, when we know that it cannot be responsible for the simpler works of creation?

Though thinking about it rationally and logically lead to the same conclusion... All I can take credit for is just looking at things rationally.. but thanks for the compliment ;) :) :)

How was the Universe created? Was it made out of nothing? How?

What was the s@x of the first organism? How did the first organism that "evolve" reproduce?

How can the first cell live without all of it's components in place? (Evolution is said to be a slow process)

Where was the energy that gave rise to the universe, as well as the emergence of life?

How did life itself begin when we don't see the same processes in action today?

#23 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 26 April 2010 - 05:04 AM

sigh :) could we please stick to one point. I like discussing but I don´t have the time to answer your long posts with even longer posts to clarify each point. It takes a short sentence to raise an alleged challenge and pages after pages to clarify what you even meant, where the misconception lies or if it´s even a challenge.
So please could we stick to one point after another, maybe you find a hole. You choose which one.

Never said I was a scientist lol.. I am doing Biotechnology... First year


Doesn´t matter. Hello colleague :)

Doesn't matter if the points are "old", if it refutes the theory then it refutes the theory. Or then again I could say the theory itself is "old", (and therefore outdated)


By old I meant they have been all brought up and are no real problem, stem from misconceptions or are already refuted.

Yes I do know that there are cells that live today without organelles... Prokaryotic cells, (virus cells have even less hardware)... Prokaryotic cells still aren't just blobs of organic matter, there is an order to it. There is the cell wall,  the nucleoid, the cytosol, ribosomes, and some have a flagellum (which I will talk about later in this thread). Still these things are all needed for that cell to survive and reproduce.. In fact a virus cell proves this as it NEEDS to have a host cell to replicate since it DOESN'T have all the tools to do this.


So there are simpler forms than the one with organelles that you considered not viable if loosing one part. What makes you sure there aren´t any lifeforms still alive or already extinct which are even simpler? Viruses need other cells to reproduce, ok. Special lifeform if you consider them "living". This doesn´t prove there aren´t simpler lifeforms possible.

I have quoted  http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/thermodynamics_01.html  as this guy sums it up much better than I can.
"The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.
As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.
The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles. "


Yes you need an energy conversion system for a lifeform. You could already have rather complex chemical reactions driven by chemistry, heat or radiation. These chemical reactions could in small intermediate steps form slowly such an conversion system. May be you should read some of the work of Wächtershäuser or Shapiro you already quoted. Abiogenesis is still not solved. I don´t deny this and maybe we will never know how it came to be, but to easily assert this is in no way possible is just lame and lazy. Show that this isn´t possible.

Amino acids could form simple proteinoids "just by heat" which in turn could form simple protocells. That´s no "proof" how it happened, sure, but just another hole in the wall of "it´s not possible". Google Sidney Fox.

Yes heat can cause reactions, however the worlds food industry relies on the FACT that heat CANNOT create life... Furthermore if you say that life can be created from reactions with just with heat from solar energy, SCIENCE would ask you to prove this via an experiment. Many people have tried to do so and have failed.


Science is working on that, we don´t "twiddle our thumbs" (you really say that? just tried to translate the german proverb :) ) by saying "not possible", we try. I already said abiogenesis is just in it´s beginnings, but there is already a lot of research going on or even done. You just have to be a bit open minded and read about it.


Miller's experiment in the 1950's. He was actually able to create amino acids (the building blocks of life), however to do so he used an atmosphere devoid of oxygen... Why? The Oxygen would oxidise the amino acids thus rendering them useless.... However within his atmosphere was ammonia..... Yet ammonia is broken down by UV light.... What stops UV light? Ozone... Which is created from... Oxygen... ;)

Miller, on the ideas of Oparin, just wanted to show that under primeval conditions the synthesis of simple building blocks of life is possible. He showed that and a lot of following experiments confirmed this with essentially all needed building blocks under several possible conditions. From the back of my mind even with some oxygen present. He skipped the oxygen because free oxygen is unlikely under primeval conditions because it oxidizes a lot of stuff in the beginning and then it would be gone.

Another thing I have been thinking about recently is Osmosis... How could the first phospholipid bilayer survive in the "primordial soup", wouldn't the "cell" pop due to the high amount of H2O in the "soup".... Just a thought really?


Ok, you should read a bit more about osmosis. Why is it the vesicles should pop? Because of the "high amount" of water present? Why is it the "more" water results in the vesicle popping?

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 April 2010 - 06:36 AM

Abiogenesis is still not solved. I don´t deny this and maybe we will never know how it came to be, but to easily assert this is in no way possible is just lame and lazy. Show that this isn´t possible.

Amino acids could form simple proteinoids "just by heat" which in turn could form simple protocells. That´s no "proof" how it happened, sure, but just another hole in the wall of "it´s not possible". Google Sidney Fox.
Science is working on that, we don´t "twiddle our thumbs" (you really say that? just tried to translate the german proverb  ;) ) by saying "not possible", we try. I already said abiogenesis is just in it´s beginnings, but there is already a lot of research going on or even done. You just have to be a bit open minded and read about it.

View Post


Ok one point :)

.... Shouldn't Science be objective... Isn't that is what it is about.

This is the 3rd time, this week I have heard evolutionists say something along the lines of... We don't have all the answers but give Science a chance to....

Nah uh... Doesn't work like that. It is Science's job to observe and report that is all.. So technically Science should be neutral, as it has no stake in either side. It should just follow where the evidence leads.

So another query that springs from this, why is this debate always portayed as "Science VS Religion"..... As we see on this forum we have quite a few Scientific Religious people... And a few of the assumptions that I hear Scientists make with their evolutionary evidence, seems like a "leap of faith" to me.. (Though they will never admit to it like that..wink)

I know I am arguing semantics and this is probably more philosophy.. Sorry for going beyond the bounds.. :)

#25 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 26 April 2010 - 07:16 AM

Ok one point ;)


Thank you :)

.... Shouldn't Science be objective... Isn't that is what it is about.

This is the 3rd time, this week I have heard evolutionists say something along the lines of... We don't have all the answers but give Science a chance to....
Nah uh... Doesn't work like that. It is Science's job to observe and report that is all.. So technically Science should be neutral, as it has no stake in either side. It should just follow where the evidence leads.

So where does it not follow where the evidence leads? Let´s stay at the subject of abiogenesis, since it was the subject of your last post: We weren´t always here, so we had to come from somewhere, animals seem to be longer here than humans, we look like special kinds of animals, maybe we evolved (we could discuss this, I know we don´t agree but the evidence leads that way) the evolution has to start somewhere let´s work out how it might have happened...
So we research abiogenesis. What´s not rational with this? I think that´s where the evidence leads. If you think the evidence leads to somewhere else you are free to build your own theory and research it, but you have to deal with the question "how" not "why" thats for philosophy.
At which point do you think the chain of logic doesn´t lead to evolution and abiogenesis? How does the alternative work?

So another query that springs from this, why is this debate always portayed as "Science VS Religion"..... As we see on this forum we have quite a few Scientific Religious people... And a few of the assumptions that I hear Scientists make with their evolutionary evidence, seems like a "leap of faith" to me.. (Though they will never admit to it like that..wink)


Surely not... :) where is the leap of faith? please be specific. I would never claim scientists couldn´t be religious or religious People scientific, but since the appearance of creationism
some religious people are attacking science. Most scientists don´t bother since most of the objections are ridiciulous but some fight back. So there is just a minority fighting but they are very loud.

I know I am arguing semantics and this is probably more philosophy.. Sorry for going beyond the bounds.. :)


You left a bit the scientific ground here and got into philosophy where I feel a bit uncomfortable :) Maybe that was your intention. I rather stick to the facts.

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 April 2010 - 08:43 AM

Lol its ok dude. Most scientists like to stick to facts.. I like to see the facts but then think critically about the philosophy about the world in a more deeper and meaningful way... I can share more if you'd like me too :)

Many people who don't know better,(sorry if that is derogatory), see the debate as SCIENCE vs RELIGION... Facts vs Faith... When in reality it is just different interpretations of the facts, in relation to that persons beliefs. I am glad you do not think the former :)

What I mean, with the leap of faith for scientists is that there are many assumptions being made in regards to the way scientists see the world.

I am not super well-versed in all this (I am just a first year remember... ;) ), however one example that springs to mind is the carbon 14 dating. I have been told that many scientists have adopted the layer timeline to determine fossil ages now... (sorry can't remember the name)... Anyway in regards to C14 dating scientists assume that the levels of C in the air / plants and animals are all the same relative to each other. Also they believe that the level of C has reached equilibrium, also that whatever C is doing it has always done relative to what is happening now... These are assumptions that scientists believe... I heard a way of explaining it like this....

Lets say you enter a room with a burning candle, and you want to work out the height of the candle... So you measure the candle and see how much has melted in 1 hour.... Now can you tell how high the candle was before it started burning? No because you can only determine the rate that it melts, not where / when it started. It is the same with C14 we can determine the rate of C14 in the air, but that doesn't mean that we know what it was 300 years ago, nor at the begining of the Earth :)

Another thing that I touched on before was the circular reasoning of the fossils that date the rock, and the rocks that date the fossils... I really don't see how a scientist can say that, that is logical.. As they are assuming that the fossil does actually accurately date the rock, or that the rock does accurately date the fossil..?? Or that the predetermined dates they have for those rocks/ fossils are correct too. All these assumptions lead to me to believe that evolutionary scientists are making a "leap of faith" similar to that said of Religion.

However as I kinda said earlier... It is our faith that helps to shape our facts... (you can quote me if you like...lol)

#27 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 27 April 2010 - 12:12 PM

Lol its ok dude. Most scientists like to stick to facts.. I like to see the facts but then think critically about the philosophy about the world in a more deeper and meaningful way... I can share more if you'd like me too :)

It´s not that I don´t think about philosophical systems or worldviews, or read a lot about them, but nothing of this is definitve, clear or calculable and I have some problems with that. We could talk about this in another thread if you want.

Many people who don't know better,(sorry if that is derogatory), see the debate as SCIENCE vs RELIGION... Facts vs Faith... When in reality it is just different interpretations of the facts, in relation to that persons beliefs. I am glad you do not think the former

Well, I guess we don´t agree fully. I don´t think it´s all a matter of interpretation.

What I mean, with the leap of faith for scientists is that there are many assumptions being made in regards to the way scientists see the world.

Some assumptions have to be made, but they have to be reasonable.

I am not super well-versed in all this (I am just a first year remember... :( ), however one example that springs to mind is the carbon 14 dating. I have been told that many scientists have adopted the layer timeline to determine fossil ages now... (sorry can't remember the name)... Anyway in regards to C14 dating scientists assume that the levels of C in the air / plants and animals are all the same relative to each other. Also they believe that the level of C has reached equilibrium, also that whatever C is doing it has always done relative to what is happening now... These are assumptions that scientists believe... I heard a way of explaining it like this....

Ok, carbon dating again :). Fossils can´t be dated by carbon dating. That´s not possible. Only Material that once was living can be dated and only if the original organic material is left and when the organism was alive it had to get it´s carbon from the atmosphere. Otherwise the dating can´t work. These restrictions (assumptions) are reasonable and I can explain why if you want.
Plants get their carbon from the air and the distribution and replacment in their bodies is rather fast (at least in the growing parts), so it´s a constant exchange of carbon from the air and carbon inside the bodies of plants and animals who eat the plants and breathe to release the absorbed carbon again. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the 14C/12C ratio in living things is the same as in the air, agreed? You could compare these ratios and look if your assumption is right so technically it isn´t an assumption.
You don´t need the assumption that the 14C/12C ratio is in equilibrium, that is it is produced as fast by spallated neutrons as decayed by beta-decay. You could calibrate the ratios by dead material of known age, which showed the ratios are in equilibrium, with some exceptions of known origin. If there would have been a major event which kicked of these ratios big time it would be very well recognizable.
Once the organism is dead there is no exchange any more with the atmosphere. The 14C decays to 14N and the ratio is getting down. This is kinetics of zeroth order, very predictable. If you haven´t had this you will get it in your education.

Lets say you enter a room with a burning candle, and you want to work out the height of the candle... So you measure the candle and see how much has melted in 1 hour.... Now can you tell how high the candle was before it started burning? No because you can only determine the rate that it melts, not where / when it started. It is the same with C14 we can determine the rate of C14 in the air, but that doesn't mean that we know what it was 300 years ago, nor at the begining of the Earth :)

Very bad analogy, it doesn´t nearly work that way. If you want to stick with that analogy you have a lot of different candles which burnt down for different known times and you could compare your unknown candle with the other ones to determine it´s burning time or something similar.

Another thing that I touched on before was the circular reasoning of the fossils that date the rock, and the rocks that date the fossils... I really don't see how a scientist can say that, that is logical.. As they are assuming that the fossil does actually accurately date the rock, or that the rock does accurately date the fossil..?? Or that the predetermined dates they have for those rocks/ fossils are correct too. All these assumptions lead to me to believe that evolutionary scientists are making a "leap of faith" similar to that said of Religion.

You don´t know the whole picture and frankly you didn´t inform yourself about the subject before mocking it. At first the layers of rocks are dated by radiometric dating and other methods, then scientists found out some fossils are always found in the same layers with the same age. These fossils were called index fossils. Now scientists have an easy way to determine the age and the kind of a layer by looking at the index fossils. What´s so "leap of faith" about that? I´m no geologist but I guess from time to time the dated layer is also dated by more complicated means to check if the index fossil dating is accurate.

However as I kinda said earlier... It is our faith that helps to shape our facts... (you can quote me if you like...lol)

So far you haven´t shown me a major "leap of faith" done by scientists or you have to explain it more carefully :)

#28 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 April 2010 - 08:19 PM

Why do evolutionists persist?

Probability... (math hates evolution)

Paleontologists have uncovered 2100 Mesozoic dinosaurs, 0 Mesozoic cavemen, 0 Cenozoic dinosaurs, and 4000 Cenozoic cavemen.
If dinosaurs and cavemen lived at the same time, we could expect 2061 Mesozoic dinosaurs, 3926 Mesozoic cavemen, 39 Cenozoic dinosaurs, and 74 Cenozoic cavemen.
I asked a math scholar what the chances of the first tally would be if dinosaurs and cavemen lived at the same time.
He said it would be 1 out of 220,000,000,000,000,000.

I think it's safe to say that the Flintstones didn't have a pet dinosaur.

Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)

Duane Gish began every public debate with a speech on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But for some reason, he never discussed the matter with qualified scientists. In 1989, Frederick Edwords, editor of the journal Creation/Evolution, sent Gish a letter inviting him to write a scholarly article explaining just where mainstream scientists have gone wrong in interpreting that law.

Edwords never got a response.

Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)

Evolutionary theory does not address the question of how life originated. It only addresses the question of how life changed once it originated.

Evolutionists have explained that to Duane Gish dozens of times, but it goes in one ear and out the other.

Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)

Whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful depends on circumstances.
There is the case of the [i]Flavobacterium[/o], which feeds from nylon by-products. Suppose that an organism with a craving for nylon by-products were born before nylon were invented. Or suppose that such an organism were born in an isolated area where modern Technology had not been introduced. In such a case, the mutation would not be favorable and a new species would not likely arise.

I realize that Duane Gish takes the position that all mutations are bad. Evolutionary biologists Massimo Pigliucci claims to have seen beneficial mutations in his own laboratory. He invited Gish to visit his laboratory and see those mutations, but Gish never accepted that invitation.

Defies Bible and other Religious Texts (Religion hates evolution)

I pass on this one, because I never stipulated that religion was a valid frame of reference.

Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)


Green and black caterpillars have been made to evolve in the laboratory. In another laboratory setting, a population of Escherichia coli bacteria developed the ability to metabolize a nutrient which the species normally cannot use.

#29 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 27 April 2010 - 08:48 PM

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the 14C/12C ratio in living things is the same as in the air, agreed? You could compare these ratios and look if your assumption is right so technically it isn´t an assumption.


For the moment, yes. But the magnetic field is weakening and has been for thousands of years (10% decay in 200 years), which means anything carbon dated a few thousand years old would have ratios of 14C/12C that appear much older than they are.

14C in the atmosphere is increasing everytime it's measured.

Dynamic Decay Theory developed by Dr. Russell Humphreys—a scientist with the Institute for Creation Research—uses an alignment of the magnetic fields of the planet's molecules, to jump start the planets magnetic field, along with fluctuations and possibly even reversals during and shortly after the Flood. Projecting back in time based on magnetic field energy gives a maximum age for the Earth of 8,700 years. The fluctuations would drain field energy, so depending on the degree of fluctuation, they could reduce the age of the Earth to 6,000 years.

This is supported by archeological magnetic data. Before 4000 years ago there is evidence of significant magnetic field fluctuations, and it is consistent with a date for the flood of 2400 - 3600 BC.


http://creationwiki....ay&oldid=150093

eQ7PhYz3xV4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

#30 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 27 April 2010 - 08:56 PM

Paleontologists have uncovered 2100 Mesozoic dinosaurs, 0 Mesozoic cavemen, 0 Cenozoic dinosaurs, and 4000 Cenozoic cavemen.
If dinosaurs and cavemen lived at the same time, we could expect 2061 Mesozoic dinosaurs, 3926 Mesozoic cavemen, 39 Cenozoic dinosaurs, and 74 Cenozoic cavemen.


They have also covered up half of what they have uncovered. Literally hundreds of artifacts, out of place fossils, human footprints, etc. have been found dating all the way back to the precambrian. Dating rocks by the fossils they contain is'nt a science anyway, since it could also be explained by ecology.

I realize that Duane Gish takes the position that all mutations are bad. Evolutionary biologists Massimo Pigliucci claims to have seen beneficial mutations in his own laboratory. He invited Gish to visit his laboratory and see those mutations, but Gish never accepted that invitation.


I would like to see them myself. What evolutionists call mutations, are usually examples of adaptation, which involve amino acid replacement and not genetic mutation.

Here is a list of what is observed to happen when the genes themselves mutate. No such competing "good list" exist.


Evolutionary theory does not address the question of how life originated. It only addresses the question of how life changed once it originated.

Evolutionists have explained that to Duane Gish dozens of times, but it goes in one ear and out the other.


Then why does every college level biology text present the Miller-Urey Experiment as evidence of abiogenesis?


Enjoy

#31 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2010 - 02:55 AM

Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)

Duane Gish began every public debate with a speech on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  But for some reason, he never discussed the matter with qualified scientists.  In 1989, Frederick Edwords, editor of the journal Creation/Evolution, sent Gish a letter inviting him to write a scholarly article explaining just where mainstream scientists have gone wrong in interpreting that law.

Edwords never got a response.


Physics hates evolution ?????? :)

Well physics is incapable of hating anything. However, both physics and chemistry alone do not explain the origins of genetic codes DNA which are esential to all life beginning in the first place and continuing on. How do nothing more than Physics and Chemistry produce just one code of brilliant purpose driven information ??????? :)



Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)

Evolutionary theory does not address the question of how life originated.  It only addresses the question of how life changed once it originated. 

Evolutionists have explained that to Duane Gish dozens of times, but it goes in one ear and out the other.

Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)

Whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful depends on circumstances. 
There is the case of the [i]Flavobacterium[/o], which feeds from nylon by-products.  Suppose that an organism with a craving for nylon by-products were born before nylon were invented.  Or suppose that such an organism were born in an isolated area where modern Technology had not been introduced.  In such a case, the mutation would not be favorable and a new species would not likely arise.



I'm lumping both of these statements together. Again, Chemistry is incapable of hating anything, see above explanation about codes.

On the second statement, the more properly phrazed question should be "Do Random Mutations (undirected copying errors) do any good ?"

Well here's an illustration of an actual intelligent sentence, yours.

( " Evolutionary theory does not address the question of how life originated " )

Well, there is your sentence, so what is missing ? Okay, I left off the period. Run this sentence through a properly programmed random mutation generator and see what happens. Now remember, the program has to be truly random, no fair cheating by using intelligent design rigging. Mostly the sentence will not stay intact and in actual fact the original content will not be improved, but only butchered. However, on the very slimmest of slim chances the body informational content sentence does stay intact and a period is added, then that is the extent of any type of benefit that was given as nothing more than punctuation. Nothing of the original content was changed or any further beneficial content was added.

The real mechanisms for adaptation and beneficial change for survival, Algorithmic engineering genes coupled with error correction mechanisms of Redundancy are often hijacked by evolutionists to claim it is their own when in FACT it isn't because the system is purpose driven and evolution has no purpose with intent driving for it's pure unadulterated mechanisms.

"jason777" brought up the Miller-Urey origin of life experiments and these in no way explain where the origin of the informational codes for furtherance and continued existance of life came from. In their (Miller, Urey & others) atheistic worldview, life is a bottom up phenomena involving material substrate which is an actual lie. Evolution is dependent on replication in order to function. DNA has the information for replication and without it, no amount of chemicals and physics is going to produce life even if everything in the experiment is lucky to have all the right componants for manufacture of a single cell. Life is a purpose and directed phenomena and that orignates from a mind. At best, does this not prove that all those experiments ever prove is that it takes an actual intelligence (at least a scientist/s conducting the experiment) to manipulate the elements into their proper places ????? :)



Defies Bible and other Religious Texts (Religion hates evolution)

I pass on this one, because I never stipulated that religion was a valid frame of reference.



But it does have a valid frame of reference in the context of accountability and morality which cannot be separated from the natural world. Our natural world is in the toilette because the people who take the lead in a failed custodialship attempt at running our planet. All of these leaders have prided themselves on acquiring initials before and after their names for the purpose of social standing prominence and profiteering. It's not the rule with all, but it is the driving force of why our planet is failing environmentally. (BTW - Environmentalists don't have the answers either)

Dr, Prof, Phds, BS, MS, CEOs, CFOs, Pres, Sen, Cong, Gen, Sgt, Capt, Lt, etc, etc, etc, and I'll even through in alot of Rev, Past, Priest, Rabbi, Mullah, Imam, Monk, Shamin, etc because many through the ages have been found deficient for the very same reasons mentioned above. :)



Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)


Green and black caterpillars have been made to evolve in the laboratory.


Okay I had to break this up because this comment doesn't even remotely make sense. In fact I tried to Google you sentence to understand what you were talking about and only two references came up and neither had anything to do with that statement. Catipillars don't evolve, the have encoded into their genetic DNA brilliant instructions for a process called metamorphosis. One of the most important questions that should be looked at in studying any componant of the natural world is, "What is the function and purpose of the caterpillar and later adult butterfly state in any environment ?" In the caterpillar state the creature's main diet is mostly plants which we call ruderals (weeds fall into category), but also some specific plants and trees. Most all ruderals are encoded with instructions geared towards prolithic replication of themselves to make more of their kind. Their only purpose is to quickly cover bare soil. Mankind in ignorance, stupidity, selfishness and greed have greatly fascillitated this. Caterpillars attacks weeds and keep things in check. Some of this creatures are host specific and look for a particular plant, much like the Monarch Butterfly which seeks out the common Milkweed varieties. Hence, the purpose of the creature is for checks and balances. The adult butterfly also helps in pollenation.

The same could be said for most all the insects in the wasp family. They likewise have a larva, pupa, adult metamorposis process. They are also preditors that seek out caterpillars to paralyze with their sting and shove down a burrow they've dug and immediately laying an egg on the paralyzed caterpillar which turn feeds on on the paralyze creature, only to morph by encoded genetic instructions into a pupa state to again transform into an adult. So further checks and balances within the ecosystem. Evoluion in no way explains these millions of checks and balances because Darwinian Evolution demands than random mutations (mistakes and copying errors) and filtered natural selection (some type of blind force intelligence , perhaps some animist type god or goddess) are the driving force behind life as we see it and is done so without any purpose or intent. Unfortunately for evolutionists, as time goes onand further research is made, we see that this rather primitive philosophy (which originally came from the Greeks, Egyptians & Babylonians and not Darwin) and worldview do not fit the factual findings of encoded informational instructions of the individual componants (insects, plants, animals, micro-biology, etc) all fitting within themselves into specifically engineered and planned ecosytems, all of which have further instructions to allow for variations of change and adaptations to fit what ever circumstances when the environment demands it.



In another laboratory setting, a population of Escherichia coli bacteria developed the ability to metabolize a nutrient which the species normally cannot use.

View Post



Again, the question has to be asked, "what is the natural environment in which we find E.coli and what role or purpose do they perform ?"

They are for the most part found in the digestive tracks animals, fish and birds, etc. Their primary function is to digest food into various simple sugars for the host to obsorb and utilize as food and then further process the waste. They tackle whatever is through at them or simply ignore it until a later time and allow it to pass on through. They are in a constant engineering state with purpose and intent because of the instructions encoded into their DNA.

If you want to see great amounts of variety and change in E.coli within a challenging environment, then wait for Andrew Zimmern & Anthony Bourdain to die, then extract the contents of their colons and find out what super-organism E.coli have been developed by actions of two individuals who'se eating habits would kill the average person on the street from some of the stuff they've wolfed down in the puruit of shock culinary entertainment. (Hmmm, maybe it's colonary) :(

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 April 2010 - 07:57 AM

All great responses :)

Sorry for using the terms, Physics hates evolution... They were generalised statements, (I know physics can't hate anything since it can't demonstrate emotion... :( )... Perhaps "physics doesn't agree with evolution", would have been a more appropriate term :)

All this science is kinda why I started this thread. If we know that life is purpose driven, (we have evidence for it here folks :) )... Then why do people still believe in the "blind watchmaker" hypothesis of evolution?

I know this is a question of semantics, however it is interesting on how popular opinion is formed, either with this information or without it... However in a perfect world we all wouldn't be having this debate anyway so I guess, that answers my question... The world isn't perfect...lol

In an attempt to answer my own silly question, perhaps it is the practices of the established education system? I can share my own story of being a Uni student and having, "blind watchmaker evolution concept", consistantly being referred to in each topic. However this is based on the premise that people just take what the lectuer say as truth, so I cannot say I am right..

(Sorry I am just thinking out loud :) )

#33 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2010 - 06:19 AM

Eocene, here is the documentation which you were looking for:

Britt, R. R. 2009. Scientists force evolution in the lab: Hormones play a role in bringing out caterpillars’ genetic traits. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/

#34 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:17 AM

Eocene, here is the documentation which you were looking for:

Britt, R. R.  2009.  Scientists force evolution in the lab: Hormones play a role in bringing out caterpillars’ genetic traits.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/

View Post


Nothing about that article dealt with real evolution under the Darwinian definitions. Other than they are labling it evolution, in reality it's nothing of the kind. The information was always there for variation for specific survival skills and designs, but hardly evolutionary as even defined by Dawkins.

As a good example you can look at the infamous Darwin's finches on Galapagos Islands. What he observed were finches under environmental stress during a drought. The long billed finches seems to outlast and become the dominent finch as a result. Hence he exclaimed long and loud at the top of his virtual figurative lungs that he had yet another proof of his Darwinian Evolutionary theory. And if you visit there today, you may read about this in the National Academy of Sciences evolutionary propaganda tourist brouchure, but what that brouchure does not reveal are some very significant and awkward facts. When the drought broke, the smaller stubby billed finches all returned as the majority population. In fact in the 1970s a research group went to verify Darwin's findings were led by Peter and Rosemary Grant who observed similar phenomena with an El Niño drought in the region. But later they observed the same smaller shape beaked finches dominating the population when the drought broke. Both Peter and a graduate student Elise Gibbs wrote a piece on the oscillation of back and forth natural selection. In other words the finches simply ran full circle they didn't change into a new species of different kind of bird, but even observed differing finches mating and simply creating a healthier Finch. But more importantly what was never observed was a continual ongoing of evolutionary changes. The really criminal thing is that most of Darwin's justification for evolution was based on his finch studies.


Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches


"Here we document a reversal in the direction of selection following the opposite climatic extreme, and demonstrate the connection between oscillating selection and fluctuations in food supply."


Here's an interesting website I just found on the error of the NAS brochure. I haven't read the entire site, so not sure with all the content , but it does deal with the subject of the diliberately left out pertinant details that would give an entirely different slant to the evolutionary philosophy.

THE ERRORS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENES BOOKLET



Another animal as an example was just in a Discovery channel documentary showing how the common domesticated farm pig if let loose into the wild will have certain wild traits show up. For instance the hair bristles will grow thicker and longer on the pig. The domestic pig has a shortened stubby snout compaired to a wild boar, but that is because it feeds from a trough. A wild pig however has a rather longer pointed smout for rooting out things to eat in the ground. now the domestic mother pig gone wild won't develope that snout herself, but she will pass that longer snout onto her offspring. What's more, the offspring will show the characteristic striping and camoflage that are common in wild piglet babies. Why ?????? :( Because that information was always there. They ran full circle. Those are not examples of evolutionary new information, but information that was built into a particular KIND of animal in the same family needing survival technics when called for. Then there is this observation from the 1960s which still holds true today and explains in plain easy to understand language of the common man what is logically and rationally observed with the eyes.

Keelenberger E. (Dec 1966) page 32 "Scientific American" "The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus"[/COLOR]

"Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of decent: Pigs remain Pigs, Oak trees remain Oak trees, generation after generation."



#35 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:49 PM

not a solid theory that can be tested like gravity.


Gish (1993: 35) would agree with you. He wrote that Evolution could not be falsified because "the details of the general concept can always be modified to accommodate new facts."

However, I have found opinions from three Evolutionists on how Evolution could be falsified:

■ if fossils were found out of sequence

Why can't the paleontologists find any pre-Tertiary mammals, pre-Jurassic birds, pre-Pennsylvanian reptiles, pre-Devonian amphibians, or pre-Ordivician fish?

McKee (2001) said that Evolution would be falsified if someone found "a zebra in the fossil record long before reptiles had evolved."

■ if biogeography suggested Creationism

Polar bears could live at either end of the world. So why do we only find polar bears at the north end? The only answer I can think of is that the Arctic Zone had brown bears to turn into white bears and the Antarctic Zone didn't.

Or did God, in His infinite wisdom, know why different frigid zones, different deserts, and different swamps would support certain taxons better than others? There is no evidence of that, because humans have transported cacti to the Australian desert, where they did just fine (Holley 2009).

Cline (2010) implied that he would question Evolution if every species existed "wherever an environment could support them, as opposed to being distributed according to their apparent relationship to other life forms."

■ if the evidence failed to converge

Each cult leader claims to have a true revelation from God, and that all other cult leaders are mere impersonators. Consequently, each cult has its own interpretation of Scripture, its own doomsday prophesies, and its own version of what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Not so in the scientific field. There we have teams working independently of each other also. Some teams work on fossils, some on animal embryos, and some on vestigial organs. Yet they all come up with the same answers.

This causes Kenneth Miller (1982a) to say:

If humans appeared to be most closely related to chimpanzees by one criterion, but to butterbeans by another, to chickens by a third criterion, and to bullfrogs by a fourth, there would be no consistent pattern, and  evolution would thereby be disproved. But all techniques for determining  relationships have consistently given results that fit with the evolutionary  prediction. . . After a century and a quarter of strenuous questioning and  testing in many fields,  the theory of evolution stands stronger than ever . .  . Evolution unites genetics, physiology, paleontology, embryology, biogeography, systematics, and geology into a coherent whole.



Cline, A. 2010. Biogeography & Evolution - How biogeography supports Evolution.
http://atheism.about...hyEvolution.htm

Gish, D. T. 1993. Creation scientists answer their critics. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

Holley, D. 2009. Biogeography as evidence of Evolution: Understanding the discontinuity of species distribution.
http://evolution.sui...e_for_evolution

McKee, J. K. 2001. Jeffrey K. McKee & Duane T. Gish: WOSU Open Line (February 13). http://home.insight....ee/debate2.html

Miller, K. 1982a. Answers to the standard Creationist arguments. Creation/Evolution 3, 1 (Winter): 1-13.
http://ncse.com/cej/...onist-arguments

#36 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:30 PM

Eocene, what exactly is your point? That animals carry genes which they inherit from the past, and which can be brought to the fore given the right circumstanes?

If that is your point, I won't argue with you. Zindler (1990) speaks of such genes, which he calls quiescent genes. He gives the example of Kollar & Fisher (1980), who detected such genes in bird subjects in the laboratory and thereby endowed them with teeth.


Kollar, E. J. & Fisher, C. 1980. Tooth induction in chick epithelium: Expression of quiescent genes for enamel synthesis, Science 207: 993-995.

Zindler, F. 1990. Is Creationism science? A debate between Duane Gish and Frank Zindler. Aired during the evening of January 11, 1990 on "Night Talk."
http://www.infidels....sh-zindler.html

#37 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 05:51 PM

Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)

Duane Gish began every public debate with a speech on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  But for some reason, he never discussed the matter with qualified scientists.  In 1989, Frederick Edwords, editor of the journal Creation/Evolution, sent Gish a letter inviting him to write a scholarly article explaining just where mainstream scientists have gone wrong in interpreting that law.

Edwords never got a response.



View Post


I hate what the 2nd law of thermodynamics has become to most of the world.

#38 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 May 2010 - 05:56 AM

Gish (1993: 35) would agree with you.  He wrote that Evolution could not be falsified because "the details of the general concept can always be modified to accommodate new facts."



I couldn't care less about Mr Gish and his Creation scientists answer their critics. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research. My mum's house is about a mile and a half from his Creationism Museum which also is connected to one of those Mega-Churches. I have never visited nor shall I ever.

Now as far as your quote, "the details of the general concept can always be modified to accommodate new facts." Yeah, Atheistic religionists have conveniently evolved their dogma to meet the objections when shown fraudulant. I will however also admit the political creationist movement side will often do the same. So what ??? That has nothing to do with these discussions.


However, I have found opinions from three Evolutionists on how Evolution could be falsified:

This causes Kenneth Miller (1982a) to say:
Cline, A.  2010. Biogeography & Evolution - How biogeography supports Evolution.
http://atheism.about...hyEvolution.htm


Holley, D.  2009.  Biogeography as evidence of Evolution: Understanding the discontinuity of species distribution.
http://evolution.sui...e_for_evolution


McKee, J. K.  2001.  Jeffrey K. McKee  &  Duane T. Gish: WOSU Open Line  (February 13).  http://home.insight....ee/debate2.html


Miller, K. 1982a.  Answers to the standard Creationist arguments.  Creation/Evolution 3, 1 (Winter): 1-13.
http://ncse.com/cej/...onist-arguments


Well once again herein is the biggest problem with most of your citations. They are not usually unbiased scientific research sites with real world peer-review scientific studies. They are simply a collection of meticulously and purposeful scavenged data borrowed and intertwined with Atheistic religious philosophy thrown into the mix. To be fair, this is also found in most of the creationism websites as well, hence I don't ever refer or for that matter even visit these sites, because I don't necessarily agree with them and I can actually use real world research work to quote from when explaining my position. I likewise refuse to refer to any such links as answersingenesis.com, etc.

■ if fossils were found out of sequence

Why can't the paleontologists find any pre-Tertiary mammals, pre-Jurassic birds, pre-Pennsylvanian reptiles, pre-Devonian amphibians, or pre-Ordivician fish? 

McKee (2001) said that Evolution would be falsified if someone found "a zebra in the fossil record long before reptiles had evolved."


Seriously here :blink: , anyone who enters into debate regarding fossils is wasting their time. While there is an element of fascination and interest in our planet's past, it can only be of a speculative nature as to what the facts are. Either side debating what's related to what, what mythological world existed, etc is always going to be a dead end affair that goes nowhere.

The fact that this world's inept geniuses categorize certain types of rock strata and categoizing it with some mythologically assigned name doesn't make it so. No one but no one, either some creationist or atheist lived back there and has a clue one as to what life was really like. In the end it is always a deadend debate much like the Greek Stoics loved to engage in and in the end, where are they ?????? :unsure:


■ if biogeography suggested Creationism

Polar bears could live at either end of the world.  So why do we only find polar bears at the north end?  The only answer I can think of is that the Arctic Zone had brown bears to turn into white bears and the Antarctic Zone didn't. 

Or did God, in His infinite wisdom, know why different frigid zones, different deserts, and different swamps would support certain taxons better than others?  There is no evidence of that, because humans have transported cacti to the Australian desert, where they did just fine (Holley 2009).

Cline (2010) implied that he would question Evolution if every species existed "wherever an environment could support them, as opposed to being distributed according to their apparent relationship to other life forms."


Again, you dig this nonsense up , cut and paste this stuff from an atheist philosophical religious website and it adds nothing of value to the discussion. Cacti in Ozzieland ?????? :blink: Unfortunately it's a materialist mindset motivated by greed and selfishness that ALSO brought in the Cane Toad, Jack Rabbit, Red Fox, etc that has done more to destroy a amazingly unique envirnoment than anything nature has done on it's own. Unfortunately for the poor evolutionary sub-human Aboriginie (as they were viewed by evolutionists at the time) it brought in European Whites of a Darwinian mindset bent on correcting the imagined mistakes of evolution. You need to watch the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence", it's extremely enlightening. The only other sad thing about this is that the religious gang back then sided with the Atheists on that issue back there in Australia. <_<


■ if the evidence failed to converge

Each cult leader claims to have a true revelation from God, and that all other cult leaders are mere impersonators.  Consequently, each cult has its own interpretation of Scripture, its own doomsday prophesies, and its own version of what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Not so in the scientific field.  There we have teams working independently of each other also.  Some teams work on fossils, some on animal embryos, and some on vestigial organs.  Yet they all come up with the same answers.



You do understand that Atheism has it's own Cult Leadership and flunky following ???????? Leaders who like any corrupt televangelist have a driving need for celebrity status, book writting fame and notoriety, wealth from all the followers who suck up that kind of Kool-Aid by purchasing any and all books they sell and conventions they oversee ?????????

Darwin, Dawkins, Dennet, you get the idea. ;)

#39 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 May 2010 - 01:04 PM

I couldn't care less about Mr Gish and his Creation scientists answer their critics.  El Cajon, CA:  Institute for Creation Research. My mum's house is about a mile and a half from his Creationism Museum which also is connected to one of those Mega-Churches. I have never visited nor shall I ever.

Now as far as your quote, "the details of the general concept can always be modified to accommodate new facts." Yeah, Atheistic religionists have conveniently evolved their dogma to meet the objections when shown fraudulant. I will however also admit the political creationist movement side will often do the same. So what ??? That has nothing to do with these discussions.
Well once again herein is the biggest problem with most of your citations. They are not usually unbiased scientific research sites with real world peer-review scientific studies. They are simply a collection of meticulously and purposeful scavenged data borrowed and intertwined with Atheistic religious philosophy thrown into the mix. To be fair, this is also found in most of the creationism websites as well, hence I don't ever refer or for that matter even visit these sites, because I don't necessarily agree with them and I can actually use real world research work to quote from when explaining my position. I likewise refuse to refer to any such links as answersingenesis.com, etc.
Again, you dig this nonsense up , cut and paste this stuff from an atheist philosophical religious website and it adds nothing of value to the discussion. Cacti in Ozzieland ?????? :blink:  Unfortunately it's a materialist mindset motivated by greed and selfishness that ALSO brought in the Cane Toad, Jack Rabbit, Red Fox, etc that has done more to destroy a amazingly unique envirnoment than anything nature has done on it's own. Unfortunately for the poor evolutionary sub-human Aboriginie (as they were viewed by evolutionists at the time) it brought in European Whites of a Darwinian mindset bent on correcting the imagined mistakes of evolution. You need to watch the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence", it's extremely enlightening. The only other sad thing about this is that the religious gang back then sided with the Atheists on that issue back there in Australia.  :unsure:

■ if the evidence failed to converge

Each cult leader claims to have a true revelation from God, and that all other cult leaders are mere impersonators.  Consequently, each cult has its own interpretation of Scripture, its own doomsday prophesies, and its own version of what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Not so in the scientific field.  There we have teams working independently of each other also.  Some teams work on fossils, some on animal embryos, and some on vestigial organs.  Yet they all come up with the same answers.

You do understand that Atheism has it's own Cult Leadership and flunky following ???????? Leaders who like any corrupt televangelist have a driving need for celebrity status, book writting fame and notoriety, wealth from all the followers who suck up that kind of Kool-Aid by purchasing any and all books they sell and conventions they oversee ?????????

Darwin, Dawkins, Dennet, you get the idea. <_<

View Post

The only thing I would say on some of your statements about other creationist materials is:

There are technical, more objective and scientific journal papers at AiG and CMI as well as CRS Quarterly and Creation Journal. I'm sure you understand AiG is not just targeting scientists but young students and laymen who are being swayed away from the faith by evolutionary arguments.

Evolution is the ONLY theory on origins in the education system, which has our kids by law 5 days a week. It has caused many a freshman in college to doubt his faith, or even deny God.

I can be just as scientifically minded and even see the principles of evolution from an evolutionist point of view. However, I also have faith that is real and not imagined, and as well, have seen the power and results of it in my life and the lives of others. Science is not synonymous with truth. It is the attempt to find the truth about certain empirical matters in life. But it can never infringe on my faith, and my relationship with the Holy Spirit of God, which is a present proof of the finished work of Christ for our souls. "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation..."

So I thank God for scientists who hold a conviction of faith like myself, and are not swayed by fine sounding arguments of men, nor the prestige of academia.

#40 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 May 2010 - 01:34 PM

There are  technical, more objective and scientific journal papers at AiG and CMI as well as CRS Quarterly and Creation Journal.  I'm sure you understand AiG is not just targeting scientists but young students and laymen who are being swayed away from the faith by evolutionary arguments.


I know what you are saying, but I try and find a more neutral stance as far as the links. The accusations can fly both ways when clearly specific bias of a site is used by either side. The kool facts are that they can be found, but it is a challenge because I know that much of my material and research papers contain alot of "INTELLECT SPEAK" if you know what I mean. One thing that has helped me is using the bible as a touchstone or foundational base for understanding what I read that is out there. One important aspect of posting and public speaking for me is to put things into simple easy to understand terms/words. This is where Jesus Christ was an example. You have to figure that he was the most brilliant man who ever walked the Earth, especially in the scientific understanding category, but he never came off as an intellectual like the religious leaders who were opposed to him of that day. The spoke down to the people in condescending tones, but Jesus drew from common illustrations so that the average person would understand. It's the same example Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians and even the actions of William Tyndale who created an easy to understand Bible translation for even the common plough boy as he put it. In the end he lost his life for doing it.



I can be just as scientifically minded and even see the principles of evolution from an evolutionist point of view.  However, I also have faith that is real and not imagined, and as well, have seen the power and results of it in my life and the lives of others.  Science is not synonymous with truth.  It is the attempt to find the truth about certain empirical matters in life.


I understand the principals as well, but the motivation and reasons behind what it supposedly does and the official definitions of how it does (if that makes sense) are what are confusing. In most common usage, the term/word evolution can be used in an intelligent context like political evolution, the evolution of communications, etc , with the exception of this one dogma in which it is used where it has no intelligence directing anything, but morphs brilliantly along without purpose, intent, goals, etc.

But I really try and use different terminologies when it comes to changes. I mean that word is clearly such a holy word for them and really, I always feel I need a shower when using some of their terms. :unsure:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users