Jump to content


A Creationist Approach To Biology?


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#141 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 09 December 2008 - 02:01 PM

Stasis, in the fossil record, means creatures that remain very similar for long periods of geological time. Two similar fossils would not indicate stasis to a paleontologist unless they can be separated in time by some dating method. As you disagree with all dating methods used by scientists for this purpose, how can you express agreement with Gould's view on stasis?


Neandertal fossils carbon date the same age as dinosaur fossils,which is also corroberated by human and dinosaur footprints found together all over the world.

That evidence is also correlatated by helium diffusion dating of ~6,000 +/- 2,000 years.

Thanks.

#142 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 09 December 2008 - 02:08 PM

Where in your quote does Gould say there are no transitionals? Gould (elsewhere) explains that his theory would mean that finding transitionals on a species level would be statistically rare (not non-existent) but this does not "remove the need for transitional forms".

View Post


Sure it does. One fairytale to replace another fairytale, that's on lifesupport. "Quick, nurse, give me 5000cc of punctuated equilibrium, STAT!"

We should be able to observe the macro-macro-evolutionary transition of forms between classes, for example, and we can.

View Post


That's like saying: "Look at all the different life forms, Evolution must be true." ...now that's scientific? :lol:

...but saying: "Look at all the magnificent variety and complexity, there must be a very wise creator." ...that's unacceptable? :lol:

Stasis, in the fossil record, means creatures that remain very similar for long periods of geological time. Two similar fossils would not indicate stasis to a paleontologist unless they can be separated in time by some dating method. As you disagree with all dating methods used by scientists for this purpose, how can you express agreement with Gould's view on stasis?

View Post


Why shoud we agree with Gould? He just showed some candor about the evidence. We don't have to marry someone's ideas inorder to note a particularly interesting aspect of what they say.

In my studies of history and other matters that have lots of views, I've found a good test for reliability is recognizing the things that your adversary feels compelled to take into consideration as true because of mounting evidence.

A good example is the fact that the Jews had counter stories against the disciples about why Jesus’ tomb was empty. However, the fact that the Jewish leadership, being hostile to Christianity, admitted the state of an empty tomb, is useful knowledge for determining what happened and what is actually true.

#143 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 09 December 2008 - 02:14 PM

Neandertal fossils carbon date the same age as dinosaur fossils,which is also corroberated by human and dinosaur footprints found together all over the world.

That evidence is also correlatated by helium diffusion dating of ~6,000 +/- 2,000 years.

Thanks.

View Post


What about that pesky carbon 14 showing up everywhere? :lol: Interesting stuff.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1143

I can see why people swallow radiometric dating so easily. It sounds so esoteric and beyond the realm of the ordinary layperson to understand. I bet that’s sub-consciously or consciously by design. (Oops, did I say the word design? :lol: )

#144 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 03:04 AM

Sure it does. One fairytale to replace another fairytale, that's on lifesupport. "Quick, nurse, give me 5000cc of punctuated equilibrium, STAT!"


Fairytale? Aren't fairies supernatural creatures with wings? I don't think there are any of those involved in evolutionary theory. What about your theory? :)

That's like saying: "Look at all the different life forms, Evolution must be true." ...now that's scientific? <_<


No, it's like saying "look at life forms with the characteristics of both fish and amphibians, or both reptiles and mammals, and these are evidence for macro-evolution."

...but saying: "Look at all the magnificent variety and complexity, there must be a very wise creator." ...that's unacceptable?  :huh:


Why not ten creators, or 500? :)

Why shoud we agree with Gould? He just showed some candor about the evidence. We don't have to marry someone's ideas inorder to note a particularly interesting aspect of what they say.


Certainly. But if you don't agree with him on stasis, why quote him on it? Why not try and find him saying something like "there are no transitional fossils", or "there are no transitional fossils outside genera" (kinds for you)? Something you do agree with.

I don't think you can afford any real stasis in nature to create all the complex ecosystems and the diversity within kinds that we see over a 4,000 year period since a world wide flood. Dynamic change, yes. Stasis, no!

In my studies of history and other matters that have lots of views, I've found a good test for reliability is recognizing the things that your adversary feels compelled to take into consideration as true because of mounting evidence.

A good example is the fact that the Jews had counter stories against the disciples about why Jesus’ tomb was empty. However, the fact that the Jewish leadership, being hostile to Christianity, admitted the state of an empty tomb, is useful knowledge for determining what happened and what is actually true.

View Post


It would be interesting to apply that to the history of creationism. In the nineteenth century, the claim would be that creatures were created as they are. No micro-evolution at all. In modern times, we have young earth creationists accepting a high degree of evolution within "kinds", and some of the old earth I.D. types accepting a lot of macroevolution and common descent. Evolutionary ideas like mutation, selection and speciation seem to be increasingly incorporated into creationism.

The "adversary feels compelled to take [these things] into consideration as true because of mounting evidence" as you might put it. ;)

Cheers.

#145 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 December 2008 - 09:49 AM

Fairytale? Aren't fairies supernatural creatures with wings? I don't think there are any of those involved in evolutionary theory. What about your theory? ;)
No, it's like saying "look at life forms with the characteristics of both fish and amphibians, or both reptiles and mammals, and these are evidence for macro-evolution."
Why not ten creators, or 500? :)
Certainly. But if you don't agree with him on stasis, why quote him on it? Why not try and find him saying something like "there are no transitional fossils", or "there are no transitional fossils outside genera" (kinds for you)? Something you do agree with.

I don't think you can afford any real stasis in nature to create all the complex ecosystems and the diversity within kinds that we see over a 4,000 year period since a world wide flood. Dynamic change, yes. Stasis, no!
It would be interesting to apply that to the history of creationism. In the nineteenth century, the claim would be that creatures were created as they are. No micro-evolution at all. In modern times, we have young earth creationists accepting a high degree of evolution within "kinds", and some of the old earth I.D. types accepting a lot of macroevolution and common descent. Evolutionary ideas like mutation, selection and speciation seem to be increasingly incorporated into creationism.

The "adversary feels compelled to take [these things] into consideration as true because of mounting evidence" as you might put it. <_<

Cheers.

View Post


No, in terms of microevolution, it's not really evolution. NO new information is being produced, just using existing information to get different breeds and that is all that happens. Nothing else besides this has been observed.

Go to your local farm, and see if they have breed anything new besides cows using 2 parent cows. Making breeds consists of using existing information, hence why we can make the same breed we made 100 years ago just by selecting 2 previously produced breeds of cows. This single handedly proves that no new information was used, especially when you can go back and breed to get the same type of cow you wanted again. :huh:

Cheers.

#146 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:59 PM

No, in terms of microevolution, it's not really evolution.  NO new information is being produced, just using existing information to get different breeds and that is all that happens.  Nothing else besides this has been observed.

Go to your local farm, and see if they have breed anything new besides cows using 2 parent cows.  Making breeds consists of using existing information, hence why we can make the same breed we made 100 years ago just by selecting 2 previously produced breeds of cows.  This single handedly proves that no new information was used,  especially when you can go back and breed to get the same type of cow you wanted again. <_<

Cheers.

View Post


I doubt if my local farmer has been breeding bovids for 20 million years. :huh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovid

New mutations create different information, and they've been observed. Duplication produces new genes, and that's been observed. Mutations on duplicated genes make new and different information, and these have been observed. Have a look around. It's interesting stuff.

Some genetic scholarship!

#147 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 01:12 PM

Why not ten creators, or 500? <_<

View Post


More than one creator begs many questions. Where did they come from? Who decides who does what? Do they cooperate or do they war with each other? If there is more than one creator are there laws outside of themselves? If there are laws that precede gods, where did the laws come from?

It's like the gods of Hinduism. Brahma is supposed to be the creator god but even he was created by Vishnu. What is Vishnu? How can something that is mindless be the first cause of all that is mindful?

It’s the same bag of questions that atheists ignore to proclaim no gods, except ancients just tied fairytales to idols. Atheists today have a conditioned enough public, thanks to Evolution, that even semi-rational people think it may be reasonable to question God’s existence.

Only Yahweh gives the right logical picture of creation and only Yahweh can, because... He Did It!

(Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

If I were writing this I’m sure the audience would say; where did God come from? But by the voice of God the penman of Genesis refrained even without the knowledge that God is the only logical starting point, the first cause. It’s amazing that something so clear could be written at a time when everyone else was divulging where their gods came from since everyone wanted to know back then just like people want to know now. We may never understand God’s perfect eternal existence but that’s what makes Him God, not us.

(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Interesting... in the beginning was the Word. In the beginning was intelligent true information, the only logical cause we could use to obtain what we observe, intelligent design. Jesus called Himself the Truth. He didn’t have truth or give truth. He was Truth. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.

(Col 1:16) For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Once again only Yahweh gives the right answers of truth. The being that authors laws, principalities, and powers is the one who rules. God is not ruled by natural laws, He is the ruler of them. This paints the correct understanding for why we can’t make things out of thin air or “baaraa” them into existence. He reserves this for Himself. This explains why things are winding down because sin removed God’s sustaining light from creation but we have His promise that before things collapse from unbridled entropy, He will return to restore us to pre-sin conditions by the power of the Son.

Plugging your ears and closing your eyes to say; "I see no evidence. I see no evidence. I see no evidence." does not make it so... :huh:

#148 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 December 2008 - 01:25 PM

I doubt if my local farmer has been breeding bovids for 20 million years. <_<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovid

New mutations create different information, and they've been observed. Duplication produces new genes, and that's been observed. Mutations on duplicated genes make new and different information, and these have been observed. Have a look around. It's interesting stuff.

Some genetic scholarship!

View Post


I have a question for you. How do single celled organisms become multi-cellular organisms? This should be a walk in the park, thanks to bacteria multiplying to create new generations so quickly.

#149 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 10 December 2008 - 03:39 PM

I doubt if my local farmer has been breeding bovids for 20 million years. :blink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovid

New mutations create different information, and they've been observed. Duplication produces new genes, and that's been observed. Mutations on duplicated genes make new and different information, and these have been observed. Have a look around. It's interesting stuff.

Some genetic scholarship!

View Post


Please dont post speculations as they have been observed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users