Leaving creationism = leaving Christianity?

[Secondhand Lion]

Again, I'm sorry, but isn't the whole crux of evolution new information? How do things progress without new information?

And good grief, couldn't they write these things easier for the lay person to understand?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

SL,

River is attempting (rather poorly) to introduce micro evolution and then extrapolate it out to millions of years in the hope that it will explain biological diversity.

Epic fail.

She knows full well what you mean by new information (required for molecules to man), but chooses to play "blonde" in a condescending manner.

Epic fail.

 

[River Jordan]

Again, I'm sorry, but isn't the whole crux of evolution new information? How do things progress without new information?

And good grief, couldn't they write these things easier for the lay person to understand?

Again, I'm sorry, but the fact of this matter is the example I provided is an observed example of the evolution of new species. We can discuss "new information", what that is, and if there are examples of such a thing, but any outcome of that would not change the facts of the goatsbeard example. The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact. There are many others, but I personally like this one because I've seen it firsthand.

And the reason it's so technical is because the point of the paper isn't "Hey look, the evolution of new species has finally been observed"; we've known that for a very long time. The point of the paper is the specific molecular genetic mechanisms behind the process. IOW, that new species evolve is a long-established fact....it's a done deal. What this paper does is provide insight into one way it can happen.

SL,

River is attempting (rather poorly) to introduce micro evolution and then extrapolate it out to millions of years in the hope that it will explain biological diversity.

Epic fail.

She knows full well what you mean by new information (required for molecules to man), but chooses to play "blonde" in a condescending manner.

Epic fail.

Good grief, would you please grow up? Geez. <_<

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Yeah, let me know when fundamentalists start dedicating even a percentage of the resources they current expend on attacking the work of scientists, on barbers and plumbers.

How is that relevant to anything I wrote?

 

[snr5557]

How is that relevant to anything I wrote?

I think what she is trying to say is Creationists are not going about this objectively. They claim it is all about science, but they never do this with any other science, such as IT. I also think this is why she wants you guys to just argue with scripture, because you have no real interest in science.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Do you have a non school girl response to my well made point?

 

[aspen]

you are out of line, CJ

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I think what she is trying to say is Creationists are not going about this objectively. They claim it is all about science, but they never do this with any other science, such as IT. I also think this is why she wants you guys to just argue with scripture, because you have no real interest in science.

My impression is the exact opposite. Young Earth Creationists avoid science and make their case on a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Science and the Bible are not in conflict if the overriding passion is for the truth. YEC's believe that God's only instrument of divine revelation is the Bible. I disagree with that.

Again, I'm sorry, but the fact of this matter is the example I provided is an observed example of the evolution of new species. We can discuss "new information", what that is, and if there are examples of such a thing, but any outcome of that would not change the facts of the goatsbeard example. The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact. There are many others, but I personally like this one because I've seen it firsthand.

And the reason it's so technical is because the point of the paper isn't "Hey look, the evolution of new species has finally been observed"; we've known that for a very long time. The point of the paper is the specific molecular genetic mechanisms behind the process. IOW, that new species evolve is a long-established fact....it's a done deal. What this paper does is provide insight into one way it can happen.


Good grief, would you please grow up? Geez. <_<

You keep sounding the victory trumpets but you haven't made your case. Not once has it been proven that one kind of organism turns into another. Adaptation within kind don't make the case for a complete transition of fish to reptile, etc. We have observed the opposite, that when two different animals are mated, the offspring is an inferior species, such as a horse and donkey produce a mule. Because mules are sterile, they are useless at perpetuating itself. All attempts at artificially inducing evolution result in freaks, an actual DE-evolution.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Again, I'm sorry, but the fact of this matter is the example I provided is an observed example of the evolution of new species. We can discuss "new information", what that is, and if there are examples of such a thing, but any outcome of that would not change the facts of the goatsbeard example. The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact. There are many others, but I personally like this one because I've seen it firsthand.

And the reason it's so technical is because the point of the paper isn't "Hey look, the evolution of new species has finally been observed"; we've known that for a very long time. The point of the paper is the specific molecular genetic mechanisms behind the process. IOW, that new species evolve is a long-established fact....it's a done deal. What this paper does is provide insight into one way it can happen.

River,

You and I have had a few conversations on here and I have gotten aggravated a few times and you have gotten aggravated a few times, but you seem to taking a rather obnoxious approach to my questions. I am asking them in good faith. Isn't the whole point of this to know for sure? Yes, I will be very difficult to persuade, I know what I believe and why I believe it, but I am always open to discussion. I can learn something from anyone.

I am not sure that anyone is questioning a new species. I am not. I've got that point and do not try to contend with it. I will give you a new species because it is there (under the definition they use). I am questioning how that information is extrapolated. What I am saying is that the information was simply duplicated in the plant. There would have to be new information added for it to become anything but a goatsbeard plant. Can someone prove everything evolution says by a plant that stays the same kind of plant? If it is enough for you, that is fine (its none of my business), it is not enough for me.

The paper does not have to be technical. Anyone who is a master of a topic can put the cookies down on the shelf where everyone can reach them. Jesus is again the perfect example. Could He have spoken over everyone's heads? You bet He could. What did He do instead? Taught in a way everyone could understand. I think so many people are scared to have the conversation because it is written in such a way to make it "unapproachable". I am not afraid of it, but many are. When you get a paper from the lawyer that contains a bunch of language you do not understand, written in a pattern you are unfamiliar with...do you assume they are hiding something they don't want you to catch? I do. If anyone knows a topic well enough...they can write in a way everyone can understand.

SL

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Y0u have brought up a good topic:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

All things were created by God, but Genesis and the book of Revelation, are not about the natural.

I am like you when it came to YEC. God would not confuse us by giving scientific evidence that goes against his word. So in order to understand how Genesis fits in, some studying had to be done in order to have a paradigm shift. That came about with the discovery of the fact that the whole bible is about the covenant God had made with mankind. Why would God talk about a natural creation in two books and the covenant he had made in the rest of his word? He did not do that.

When God created the Heaven and the Earth in Genesis, it is referring to the same Heaven and Earth in the book of Revelation. The Jews understood that it was the place where God and man came together by way of a covenant. It was symbolized by Mount Moria, where Abraham went to scarf ice Issac, where Jacob had his vision and where Solomon built the temple. Many of the religious Jews also feel it was in the mist of the garden of Eden.

Natural creation does not agree with science and a Christian should not make a stand on something that can not be explained. God can not lie, so if it looks like a lie, we are the one’s who must search for the truth.

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-covenant-creation-archive

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I think what she is trying to say is Creationists are not going about this objectively. They claim it is all about science, but they never do this with any other science, such as IT. I also think this is why she wants you guys to just argue with scripture, because you have no real interest in science.

Well it's nice of you to chip in as a spokeswoman for River Jordan, but unless you show me how evolutionists dedicate their expenditures on something other than they are dedicated to then neither you nor River Jordan have a point. You are trying your hardest to defend an incredibly silly argument and you don't even seem to realize it. Evolutionists and creationists are supporting two different models for how life originated. Creationists are no more anti-evolutionists than evolutionists are anti-creationists. You can find evidences of contention on both sides and your false belief that evolutionists are more objective than creationists is based on your own prejudices.

Let me give you the same challenge as I gave River Jordan which she could not and did not respond to. Show me what objective evidence evolutionists have provided that life comes from non-life. She calls this a "mystery" and yet it is something that is being published as though it was a scientific fact in textbooks all over the globe! The evidence however stands in contradiction to this.

So if THIS mere nugget of "scientific" concensus is being touted as fact that most people seem to swallow then WHAT prey tell is remotely stopping other "objective" conclusions from being spread around the academic world as being factual????

Wake up snr!

Wake up River Jordan!

 

[River Jordan]

How is that relevant to anything I wrote?

Other people seem to understand, so I don't know why you're struggling to.

My impression is the exact opposite. Young Earth Creationists avoid science and make their case on a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

But you seem to contradict that below.

Not once has it been proven that one kind of organism turns into another. Adaptation within kind don't make the case for a complete transition of fish to reptile, etc. We have observed the opposite, that when two different animals are mated, the offspring is an inferior species, such as a horse and donkey produce a mule. Because mules are sterile, they are useless at perpetuating itself. All attempts at artificially inducing evolution result in freaks, an actual DE-evolution.

Isn't all that exactly what you just said creationists don't do, i.e., trying to make your case from science?

I am not sure that anyone is questioning a new species.

You might want to discuss that with some of the other creationists here.

I am questioning how that information is extrapolated. What I am saying is that the information was simply duplicated in the plant. There would have to be new information added for it to become anything but a goatsbeard plant. Can someone prove everything evolution says by a plant that stays the same kind of plant? If it is enough for you, that is fine (its none of my business), it is not enough for me.

Ok, first of all you need to remember why you and I are even discussing the newly evolved species of Tragopogon. KingJ was arguing that I would have to answer to God for telling kids that evolution is fact. I responded by I not only can tell kids that evolution is a fact, I can show them evolution happening in real-time, and I wondered why KingJ would have Christians deny the reality that is in God's creation.

You came along and now you're raising new questions about "information" and universal common descent, which while good topics to discuss, deviate from the reason I cited the newly evolved Tragopogon in the first place.

So to reiterate my point, evolution is a fact because we see it happen all the time. Thus, I believe telling kids that they have to deny this fact in order to be Christians is setting them up to fail.

Now, if you want to discuss "new information", we can certainly do so. I just don't want to lose sight of my original point to KingJ.

The paper does not have to be technical.

Every profession has it's own jargon. I can't expect to pick up a diesel engine manual and immediately understand everything in it, nor can I expect the same with a journal of cardiac surgery, computer networking, or just about anything else.

I guess if this topic truly interests you, you should take the time to learn the terminology and concepts. I find it hard to believe that people don't understand that to understand something like evolutionary biology and molecular genetics, you have to some work.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

But you seem to contradict that below.


Isn't all that exactly what you just said creationists don't do, i.e., trying to make your case from science?

How am I contradicting anything? I never claimed to be a YEC. Where's the contradiction?

 

[River Jordan]

Evolutionists and creationists are supporting two different models for how life originated.

What exactly is the "creationist model"?

Let me give you the same challenge as I gave River Jordan which she could not and did not respond to. Show me what objective evidence evolutionists have provided that life comes from non-life. She calls this a "mystery" and yet it is something that is being published as though it was a scientific fact in textbooks all over the globe! The evidence however stands in contradiction to this.

Can you cite some textbooks saying that "life comes from non-life is a scientific fact"?

How am I contradicting anything? I never claimed to be a YEC. Where's the contradiction?

Ok, sorry then. I guess I don't understand what your were trying to say. Were you trying to make an argument against the science of evolutionary biology?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Ok, sorry then. I guess I don't understand what your were trying to say. Were you trying to make an argument against the science of evolutionary biology?

You say that as if science is on your side and anyone who disagrees with you is against science; a typical evolutionist delusion. My point is that science doesn't prove evolution because it fails to establish transitional facility from one kind to another. Observing adaptations within species and projecting that over the course of millions of years to "prove" evolution isn't science, it's presumption. Evolutionists are undone by an embarrassing lack of transitional forms in the fossil record and an inadequate explanation of the Precambrian explosion that militates against the theory of gradual nascence from single cell forms to complex organisms. It's why evolution has become more religion than science, asserting unfounded dogmas on blind faith rather than embarking on an untortured pursuit of the truth.

 

[River Jordan]

You say that as if science is on your side and anyone who disagrees with you is against science; a typical evolutionist delusion.

Wow, that's pretty strong. So if you have a valid scientific argument showing that most of the field of evolutionary biology is wrong, let's see it.

My point is that science doesn't prove evolution because it fails to establish transitional facility from one kind to another.

What is a "kind"?

Observing adaptations within species and projecting that over the course of millions of years to "prove" evolution isn't science, it's presumption.

Can you cite a scientific paper that does that?

Evolutionists are undone by an embarrassing lack of transitional forms in the fossil record

Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?

and an inadequate explanation of the Precambrian explosion that militates against the theory of gradual nascence from single cell forms to complex organisms.

Can you expand on that, beyond just an empty assertion? Something like an actual discussion of the fossils that exist from those time periods, their characteristics, and their chronology would help.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I have a scientific argument that nullifies Darwinian evolutionary theory. IE, the common descent of all organisms from a single cell that somehow came about by totally natural processes.

It's called creation.

What is a kind?

You will never accept any of our definitions of kind. That is why my argument is simple to complex. Molecules to man. Goo to you. This takes millions of years, you cannot observe millions of years. Your fossil record is incomplete. No true scientist denies this.

You are failing. You are in a sinking ship, the captain has left crew persons are jumping ship left and right and yet you stay. There are studies concerning the psychology of your fundamentalism.

 

[River Jordan]

I have a scientific argument that nullifies Darwinian evolutionary theory. IE, the common descent of all organisms from a single cell that somehow came about by totally natural processes.

It's called creation.

If that's your idea of a "scientific argument", I'll let that speak for itself.

What is a kind?

You will never accept any of our definitions of kind.

I have to be given a definition first.

As for the rest of your post, again....grow up.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Wow, that's pretty strong. So if you have a valid scientific argument showing that most of the field of evolutionary biology is wrong, let's see it.


What is a "kind"?


Can you cite a scientific paper that does that?


Where exactly have you looked to see if transitional fossils exist or not?



Can you expand on that, beyond just an empty assertion? Something like an actual discussion of the fossils that exist from those time periods, their characteristics, and their chronology would help.

I'm not sure what to do with these badgering responses stemming from the unfounded premise that I bear the burden of proof. You're fond of using hyper-intellectualism as a cudgel in discussions involving broader summaries. I'm not a scientist, but I'm a very well read, intelligent man. I don't need to cite specific peer reviewed papers to you to have a discussion on well established conclusions. It's not my obligation to reinvent the wheel for you. Scientists trying to prove biological evolution have adapted their strategies to cope with glaring weaknesses such as the Precambrian explosion and the fossil record stingy in examples of transitional forms. To advocates of the evolutionary viewpoint, these findings refute Darwinism but not evolution because modern scientific findings are unkind to Charles Darwin's original theory.

This is the frustration that everyone here is having with you, that you attempt to browbeat opponents with intellectual bluster instead of discussing the evidence. Also stymying any discussion with you is your intellectual dishonesty in demanding proof for what you already know are well founded axioms of current science. Your pretense that there doesn't exist within scientific circles a robust controversy over what the fossil record indicates is similar to me claiming the world is round and you responding with adversarial demands for proof and specific studies. So let's cut the crap because I, like many others I've seen on these threads, don't want to play your silly little head games.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Let's hear your scientific argument on abiogenesis complete with exactly how a finger is made. Be sure to include how your findings are observable and repeatable. I am not interested in pie in the sky predictions.

If you have no observable and repeatable process, then it seems to logically to follow that creation is just as scientific as your idea.

We do continue to circle the debate, especially as new persons are added. I believe you are sorely mislead in your world view. I find you stiff necked and stubborn about it. When you speak of spreading your views to children I cringe for them and you. It does however, make me ever more diligent in my efforts to fight for our children. Thank you for that.

And with that I will follow your advice and grow up and bow out of this and other related threads. I may pop in with a question or two but no more rants.

I symbolically wipe my feet of this apostasy.