Artic Fox, Polar Bears, White Owls...

[txviper]

The most awful effect of getting caught up in the insane asylum of evolutionary religion is losing the ability to distinguish between the possible and the completely impossible.

[MrSpooky]

You know what, TXViper? Look at this video. It details the evolution of the eye quite nicely.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

The most awful effect of getting caught up in the insane asylum of evolutionary religion is losing the ability to distinguish between the possible and the completely impossible.

How quickly creationists resort to name calling and unsubstantiated attacks of "impossibility".

 

What seems awful to me is that you are forced to determine what is possible or impossible based on your interpretation of the texts of an ancient Hebrew religion. The possible scenarios given for the evolution of the eye are not "completely impossible" (in fact they seem quite plausible), they are just completely non-Genesis and that appears to be the sole reason for your dismissal of them.

 

You're not interested in extending or correcting science, you're interested in pushing your dogma. I'm interested in the extension and correction of scientific knowledge. I have no interest at all in dogma pushers as you appear to be.

[txviper]

"Look at this video. It details the evolution of the eye quite nicely."

 

I didn't have to watch it. I couldn't even finish the accompanying text.

 

“Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper….”

 

Well wait just a minute. That sortof disregards the nature of those “random changes”.

 

First of all, mutations are unlikely to happen. 1 in a billion replication errors are still around after enzymes involved in DNA replication do everything they are supposed to do. And what they are supposed to do is see to it that replication occurs with no changes at all.

 

Second, in the event that there is an error, to the tune of 99%, this mutation will have absolutely no effect whatever.

 

Third, if it does have any impact, in all likelihood it will be harmful and will result eventually the death of the organism.

 

Fourth, if this did somehow prove to be a “beneficial” mutation, like one that..ahem..might create depressions in a light sensitive patch, this mutation has to occur in the sexual cells in order to be passed on to the next generation.

 

Fifth, this amazing “defense depression” is more likely to wind up in an unbeneficial location on the creature than it is in the midst of the “light sensitive spot”. Don’t lose sight of the fact that “random” is the operative concept. (Think of pin the tail on the donkey with an exponential difficulty factor). Even if a depression-causing mutation does get past the enzyme sentries, the depression is just as likely to wind up on the tail or the bottom of its foot as it is anywhere else. There is no magnetic association between the light sensitive spot and the random location of the depression.

 

But let’s just assume, against all odds, that such a mutation did occur. So now you are all the way up to a light sensitive spot with a depression in it. (This would have all the benefits of a hemorrhoid). How many more random copy errors do you think it will take to get to something like the retina?

 

In humans there are 137 million specialized cells in the retina; 130 million rods for black and white imaging and 7 million cones for color. Together they process and transmit over 100 million composite images to the brain every thousandth of a second.

 

And this is just the retina. One subsystem out of about 40. If any of them fail, the organism will be blind.

 

Your religion says that sight components were designed and assembled into a useful function by random, accidental, copy errors, which enzymes are doing everything they can to keep from happening. It also says they the eye sockets in the skull, eyelids, tear glands and ducts, the lens, orbit muscles, the iris, optic nerve and a host of other features all came by way of mutation, and were selected because they were "beneficial" even though they were 100% useless until system integration occurred.

 

 

If you believe any of this, you are using exactly none of the 100 billion neurons in your brain for critical thinking.

 

 

So, ya’ll want to do hearing next or finish this brilliant article?

[Asimov]

Well wait just a minute. That sortof disregards the nature of those “random changes”.

 

First of all, mutations are unlikely to happen. 1 in a billion replication errors are still around after enzymes involved in DNA replication do everything they are supposed to do. And what they are supposed to do is see to it that replication occurs with no changes at all.

 

You already went over this with crazy_tiger and neil, txviper. Mutations are not rare and we can use an actual mathematical model to calculate the rate of mutation in a given population.

 

Nobody said random changes but you. Mutations are random, but the selection of them is not, so your point is moot.

[Samurai Tailor]

First of all, mutations are unlikely to happen. 1 in a billion replication errors are still around after enzymes involved in DNA replication do everything they are supposed to do. And what they are supposed to do is see to it that replication occurs with no changes at all.

Where does 1 in a billion come from? The commonly cited figure is something like 120 new mutations per unique human genome.

Second, in the event that there is an error, to the tune of 99%, this mutation will have absolutely no effect whatever.

Again, you seem to be making up numbers from whole cloth.

Third, if it does have any impact, in all likelihood it will be harmful and will result eventually the death of the organism.

In fact, most harmful mutations are prenatally lethal. Hence, the astronomically high figures usually given for spontaneous abortions.

Fifth, this amazing “defense depression” is more likely to wind up in an unbeneficial location on the creature than it is in the midst of the “light sensitive spot”. Don’t lose sight of the fact that “random” is the operative concept. (Think of pin the tail on the donkey with an exponential difficulty factor). Even if a depression-causing mutation does get past the enzyme sentries, the depression is just as likely to wind up on the tail or the bottom of its foot as it is anywhere else. There is no magnetic association between the light sensitive spot and the random location of the depression.

How do you know that? Linkage is a well-understood genetic phenomenon, for one, and certain loci show higher mutation rates than others.

But let’s just assume, against all odds, that such a mutation did occur. So now you are all the way up to a light sensitive spot with a depression in it. (This would have all the benefits of a hemorrhoid). How many more random copy errors do you think it will take to get to something like the retina?

How many more chances do you think there are? Remember, we are talking about an organism probably simpler than a flatworm (maybe as simple as a colonial organism), reproducing asexually, taking up little space and resources, with a miniscule life span.

Your religion says that sight components were designed and assembled into a useful function by random, accidental, copy errors, which enzymes are doing everything they can to keep from happening. It also says they the eye sockets in the skull, eyelids, tear glands and ducts, the lens, orbit muscles, the iris, optic nerve and a host of other features all came by way of mutation, and were selected because they were "beneficial" even though they were 100% useless until system integration occurred.

100% useless? That irreducible complexity strawman has no legs. Modern organisms exhibit eyes of all sizes and configurations.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

When someone uses the same arguments over and over although they know those arguments have been discredited it is a simple case of intellectual dishonesty. In my experience with "professional" creationists this is not unusual. One thing that doesn't seem to improve (evolve?) at all is the level of dishonesty among creationism propagandists. It's immoral and disgusting.

 

I'm convinced with no empirical evidence that professional creationist propagandists are in it for the money. So it doesn't matter how many times they're refuted. If enough christians come along to give them money, they stay in business. A christian sucker is born every minute.

[crazy-tiger]

Your religion says that sight components were designed and assembled into a useful function by random, accidental, copy errors, which enzymes are doing everything they can to keep from happening. It also says they the eye sockets in the skull, eyelids, tear glands and ducts, the lens, orbit muscles, the iris, optic nerve and a host of other features all came by way of mutation, and were selected because they were "beneficial" even though they were 100% useless until system integration occurred.

 

 

If you believe any of this, you are using exactly none of the 100 billion neurons in your brain for critical thinking.

Agreed... if anyone believes any of that codswallop, then they are not using their brain.

However, since that is NOT how it is described as happening in any way, shape or form...

 

See... you seem to have this idea that evolution works like a jigsaw. You think we say that each piece is slotted into place as is. You are suggesting that evolution works by having a single mutation creating an entire component in one go...

 

Can I just point out to you that mutations are almost always minute changes? That trying to argue that they are massive changes is the most flimsy form of strawman you could use? That you have been corrected on this so many times before that people would be justified in believing that you have no intention whatsoever of actually learning anything, but would prefer to wallow in your self-imposed ignorance?

So, ya’ll want to do hearing next or finish this brilliant article?

Well, I'd like you to try arguing against evolution for once, rather than the screwed-up, horrendously twisted, ignorant rubbish of a strawman you've been trying to knock down since you first showed up here.

 

Can you do that for me?

[MrSpooky]

Well wait just a minute. That sortof disregards the nature of those “random changes”.

 

First of all, mutations are unlikely to happen. 1 in a billion replication errors are still around after enzymes involved in DNA replication do everything they are supposed to do. And what they are supposed to do is see to it that replication occurs with no changes at all.

 

Whoa! Quite untrue. In actuality, humans on average have 2 mutations in their genome each generation. This number also varies across species, whereas I'm quite sure that more primitive species have fewer error-correction mechanisms and will therefore experience a higher mutation rate, even with a smaller genome.

 

Second, in the event that there is an error, to the tune of 99%, this mutation will have absolutely no effect whatever.

 

I'm not sure the number would be 99%, but yes, it is true that the majority of mutations have pretty much no effect.

 

Third, if it does have any impact, in all likelihood it will be harmful and will result eventually the death of the organism.

 

While this is true, you must remember that since the organism dies (and hence removes this negative mutation from the gene pool) the negative mutation is thus IRRELEVANT to the population as a whole.

 

Fourth, if this did somehow prove to be a “beneficial” mutation, like one that..ahem..might create depressions in a light sensitive patch, this mutation has to occur in the sexual cells in order to be passed on to the next generation.

 

So what? There's nothing all too special about this statement, ya know.

[SkepticOfBible]

I would take issue with you though inasmuch as there is no shortage of evolutionists who call evolution is indeed a fact.

Please cite references for you assertion

Agreed. But neither should we lose sight of the fact that there ultimately only two competing points of view. Things were either conceived, designed and created or they formed on their own with no intellect whatever involved. All other points of view are variations of one of these two concepts.

 

Well on the scientific front on the position of evolution I don't see a lot of variations, there certainly are disagreements, but they are usually resolved through emphirical testing.

 

However on the Creationist front, there is a huge disagreement.

 

Kind of Creationist

 

You say that in the interest of science, biblical creationism should be thought.

 

Can you give me one good reason why Islamic creationism should not be taught?

 

Good question. I’m not sure I could come up with a good answer for it. Something in the way of substantial evidence for anything else would be a good start.

Could you clarify more?

You seem like a decent and rational person who is in genuine pursuit of the truth. I would ask you to please look into this and make absolutely sure you are correct in your statement.

I usually see mutation in terms of iterative mistakes,as a series of new mistakes. But that's not random, that's the way we humans operate too.

 

I did not do a good job of asking it. I rephrased in response to Asimov above. See if it makes more sense this time around.

 

No not really.

I am very comfortable in my own, but there are some things I have not settled down on and perhaps never will. On the basics though, I feel pretty surefooted.

 

Even in your basics beliefs there is no surety.

 

I acknowledge and regard the obvious value of science. I reject ideologies presented as scientific truth. Dr. Raymond Damadian was the key patent holder and player in the development of MRI technology. He is also is a young earth creationist. Newton was as well. Almost every one of the fathers of the modern sciences were Biblical Christians. I despise that punk atheists like Dawkins stand on their shoulders and try to associate atheism with objectivity.

They were Christians for sure, but I wouldn't say that they were literalist like YEC. And I don't think you would call Newton a christian, since he never believed in the doctrine of trinity, And I don't find it hard to believe that Newton was a YEC, since we have come a long way in terms of scientific data, in terms of proof of Old Earth.

 

BTW the Old Earth theory was proved way before the theory of evolution came along.

I agree. But there is a lot of sappy stuff published that simply tows the evolutionary line. There is also exclusion and censorship based on preconception and politics.

 

And ironically many of these scientists are Christians themselves.

 

Did you hear that the catholic church denounced ID?

 

No, I’m relatively happy with what is in place. Darwinists have their hands full. Just keep everything in the public arena and out of the courts.

 

Why should they be kept out of court? You forgot the monkey scopes trial, did you?

 

Everyone is working with the same data. It is the interpretation of that data that is the issue.

 

I don't think there is an issue with the scientific data.

 

There is however an issue with how the bible shoud be the interpretated. Whether the bible should be interpretated metaphorically or literally.

 

We have Hebrew on our website who holds the position that the bible should be read only metaphorically.

 

Check out his last post about the whole Genisis Chapter

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6065#

 

Perhaps we will get to talk about some things that you are not aware of or don’t appreciate.

 

That can be easily be proven wrong. Just check out my posts in the colloseum.

 

Not much more. I was referring to this in my comments about designer preference. Decoration as opposed to function. Breasts are not exclusively about nursing in humans.

 

For a moment I could stop myself laughing.

 

On what basis did you come up with the idea that male nipples are meant to be decorative?

 

Secondly if another YEC comes up and says that male nipples are there so that it prevents demons from enter our body, how would you prove him wrong and prove yourself right?

 

You see this is the problem with Intelligent Design, none of your speculation can ever be proven false.

 

For the hair? Who knows. Maybe just because I like ponytails and God likes me.

You mean Allah likes you

I disagree. I would acknowledge that there are things that suggest this, but not prove it. I believe that science has woven a gigantic fantasy about human ancestry.

 

For a fantasy it certainly has certainly answered a lot of questions, and is the basis for a lot of our life's solutions. . Can ID do the same?

 

Next time you meet a palentologist, do tell him that he is dealing with fantasy.

 

If you forget, TOE and it has gone a long and rigourous path of scientific scrutiny

 

However the Biblical Creationism has been there for the last 5000 year, yet it has failed to provide evidence for itself.

Also, I never lose sight of the fact that evolutionary theory proposes that humans and tomatoes ultimately have a common ancestor.

 

And you like the idea that you were made from Dirt?

I see incomprehensible complexity, self-awareness, gender and all as evidence of a designer.

How is Gender and complexity a evidence of a designer?

 

I thing there is an very interesting thread that is going on in the Colloseum called Black Box Intelligence, and even till date we haven’t agreed with each other about what do we mean by intelligence. Would you like you share your views on this topic?

 

I would expect that second generation humans already had diminished genetics.

 

Second Generation Humans? what’s the emphirical evidence that there was a first generation human?

[LloydDobler]

The most awful effect of getting caught up in the insane asylum of evolutionary religion is losing the ability to distinguish between the possible and the completely impossible.

ROFL! This from a guy who believes in the resurrection of dead people.

 

Make a blind man see by spitting in dirt and rubbing the mud on his eyes, mother fucker. Then you can lecture us on the fallacy of believing the impossible.

[txviper]

TexasFreethinker,

 

“that you are forced to determine what is possible or impossible based on your interpretation of the texts of an ancient Hebrew religion”

 

While I am an admitted Bible literalist, I have not tried to make a case based on scriptural indications.

 

 

“The possible scenarios given for the evolution of the eye are not "completely impossible" (in fact they seem quite plausible)”

 

Well, I just disagree. Those possible scenarios are implausible and nothing short of desperate attempts to justify evolutionary religious dogma.

 

 

“they are just completely non-Genesis and that appears to be the sole reason for your dismissal of them.”

 

They are nonsensical speculation and nothing more. You would do well to start looking for the buzz-words and phraseology that accompanies evolutionary apologetics.

 

 

”You're not interested in extending or correcting science, you're interested in pushing your dogma. I'm interested in the extension and correction of scientific knowledge. I have no interest at all in dogma pushers as you appear to be”

 

What dogma have I pushed?

 

If a viewpoint does not come to you with a no-intellect-allowed premise, you have a compulsion and requirement to reject it. This is not scientific and it is nowhere near free-thinking. If you can’t think outside the box of evolutionary doctrine, then your analytical processes are restricted and captive, not free at all. You are stuck trying to shore up absurd contrivances.

 

Is there any particular reason you didn’t want to comment on Wise’s quote?

 

------------

 

Asimov,

 

“You already went over this with crazy_tiger and neil”

 

Yeah, that was truly enlightening, but it won’t happen again.

 

 

“Mutations are not rare and we can use an actual mathematical model to calculate the rate of mutation in a given population”

 

Yes, they are rare. We can have a contest about this if you like. You find neutral scientific literature that says point-blank that they are not, and I will respond to them with quotes that say the opposite.

 

 

”Nobody said random changes but you”

 

“Random changes” was a direct quote from the text the was with the video MrSpooky provided the link to.

 

 

“Mutations are random”

 

Good point. Now apply that thought to the devolpment of any bio-system or organism and you will begin to comprehend why evolution is a preposterous idea.

 

 

“but the selection of them is not, so your point is moot"

 

This seriously flirts with granting a personality to natural selection. There are evolutionists on record in recognition of the fact that selection is over-rated and problematic.

 

========

 

Samurai Tailor,

 

"Where does 1 in a billion come from? The commonly cited figure is something like 120 new mutations per unique human genome."

 

Both numbers are accurate. I was talking about a single replication. The starting point is not important. The imaginary effectiveness of mutations flies in the face of anything like reasonable probabilities.

 

 

“you seem to be making up numbers”

 

This came in response to my pointing out that about 99% of mutations are neutral. That number can be quibbled about for a few percentage points. It doesn’t matter. You can calculate your own value for how many mutations are neutral. Just apply randomness to whatever percentage of the DNA molecule you want to consider as “junk” or non-coding.

 

 

“Linkage is a well-understood genetic phenomenon, for one, and certain loci show higher mutation rates than others.”

 

Thinking that successive nucleotide replication errors will be a beneficial and sequentially related series of events is a monumental absurdity, regardless of what is understood about “linkage”. You have to get in touch with the idea that you are trying to account for thousands of individual components involved in thousands of bio-systems simultaneously occurring in this fashion.

 

 

“How many more chances do you think there are? Remember, we are talking about an organism probably simpler than a flatworm (maybe as simple as a colonial organism), reproducing asexually, taking up little space and resources, with a miniscule life span.”

 

It doesn’t matter. The reality is that statistically, mutations are more likely to be destructive to “developing” optical hard and software than they are beneficial. Your amazing selection and transfer processes would be busier deleting the screw-ups than they would ever be trying to preserve any advances. Do the math and calculate your own “X steps forward, X’ steps back” figure.

 

 

“100% useless?”

 

Yes. Delete or damage any component and the system is 100% useless.

 

 

“That irreducible complexity strawman has no legs. Modern organisms exhibit eyes of all sizes and configurations.”

 

The straw man is all yours. You are looking at this from the point of view of evolutionary religious dogma. You mentioned above that sight must have started developing in a simple organism. What that means is that the specialized forms all occurred independently after diverging from the (nebulous) original. “eyes of all sizes and configurations” is therefore totally meaningless because they are totally unrelated. The number of unrelated specialties only compounds your already gigantic mutations and statistics problem.

 

------------

 

MrSpooky,

 

“…I'm quite sure that more primitive species have fewer error-correction mechanisms and will therefore experience a higher mutation rate, even with a smaller genome.”

 

And I’m pretty sure that you cannot document this claim. Plus, you are only opening a can of worms with this. The fossil record captured bacteria that are supposedly over a billion years old, yet they are “virtually indistinguishable” from living, modern ones. If the more primitive species had poor correction mechanisms, how in hell did they stay morphologically the same for over a billion years?

 

--------------------

 

Pritishd,

 

“no shortage of evolutionists who call evolution is indeed a fact.

Please cite references for you assertion”

 

I’m running out of time. You can search this out for yourself. There are other posters here who can make an air-tight case for this.

 

 

“Well on the scientific front on the position of evolution I don't see a lot of variations, there certainly are disagreements, but they are usually resolved through emphirical testing”

 

Empirical testing is not part of “evolutionary science”. As I pointed out, Punctuated Equilibrium is Gould and Eldredge’s construct that was formulated to explain why there cannot be any evidence for evolutionary gradualism.

 

 

“However on the Creationist front, there is a huge disagreement.”

 

Eugenie Scott, who assembled the list in your T.O piece, is not a rationl person. She is only a political lobbyist who wants the government to adopt, fund and propagate her religious views.

 

 

“You say that in the interest of science, biblical creationism should be thought.”

 

I assume you mean taught, but no I assuredly do not want creationism taught in publicly funded classrooms. Science and science only. What can be observed and documented without speculation.

 

 

”Can you give me one good reason why Islamic creationism should not be taught?”

 

Because it is no more appropriate to invoke the point of view of muslims than it is an atheistic Darwinist’s religious beliefs. Or a Mormon’s or mine for that matter.

 

 

“substantial evidence for anything else would be a good start.

Could you clarify more?”

 

Not really. My reasons for what I believe are extremely profound to me. But to anyone driven by ideological religious convictions, they are invalid. It is like pointing out to a Muslim that their prophet has no prophecies. It doesn’t phase them. If a person wants to believe in a gargantuan series of mutational fantasies to account for the phenomena of vision, then that is what they are going to believe. People put their faith in what they want to be true. Beliefs are not often related to objectivity and evidence.

 

 

“I usually see mutation in terms of iterative mistakes,as a series of new mistakes. But that's not random, that's the way we humans operate too.”

 

But humans use, for better or worse, thought processes. Mutations do not. They are simply DNA replication failures. Accidents. Errors. You’ve been conditioned to think of evolution as responsive to the environment (like Kevin Costner’s character in Waterworld, evolving gills and webbed feet in a few generations). It is not. Like I showed in this thread, from one of many possible sources, all change presumably results solely on the basis of accidental, random mutations. This is the perpetual turd candle on evolution’s birthday cake. That people still believe in it in spite of the facts is a sterling commentary on human faith.

 

 

“Even in your basics beliefs there is no surety.”

 

I have to agree. But at least I have arrived at them for reasons. Some of them I do not really like.

 

 

“They [scientists] were Christians for sure, but I wouldn't say that they were literalist like YEC.”

 

Many were. Genuine Bible thumpers.

 

 

“And I don't find it hard to believe that Newton was a YEC, since we have come a long way in terms of scientific data, in terms of proof of Old Earth.”

 

There are still lots of Ph’D’s who recognize the inconsistencies and problems in evolutionary thought.

 

 

“BTW the Old Earth theory was proved way before the theory of evolution came along.”

 

By who? Lyell? It is still not proven.

 

 

“And ironically many of these scientists are Christians themselves.”

 

We will see if they make the cut. Matt 7:21-23

 

 

”Did you hear that the catholic church denounced ID?”

 

I hear they denounced pedophiles also. They’re right on the cutting edge of the issues aren’t they?

 

 

“There is however an issue with how the bible shoud be the interpretated. Whether the bible should be interpretated metaphorically or literally.”

 

Yeah, this is a problem. It’s like when evolutionists tell you that you don’t understand how evolution works when you point out something stupid that they believe about it. If metaphorists (preterists, amillenialists, etc.) don’t like or understand something, they step into the role of intellectual and dismiss it as allegory.

 

 

“We have Hebrew on our website who holds the position that the bible should be read only metaphorically.”

 

I didn’t see a post by anyone calling himself Hebrew from your link. But I am sure I’ve heard it all before.

 

 

“On what basis did you come up with the idea that male nipples are meant to be decorative?”

 

I don’t know that they are. Or that pubic hair is, or ponytails or peacock feathers. How would evolutionists account for them? As a matter of fact, how do they account for the grossly impractical reality of gender at all? Asexuality is much more reliable if the issue is reproduction. When do you suppose gender divergence occurred? Is it documented in the fossil record? Maybe MrSpooky can find another PBS video about it.

 

 

“You mean Allah likes you”

 

Me and moon-god deities do not get along well.

 

 

“For a fantasy [evolutionary human ancestry] it certainly has certainly answered a lot of questions”

 

Such as?

 

 

“and is the basis for a lot of our life's solutions. . “

 

Such as?

 

 

“Can ID do the same?”

 

ID is just a theory that recognizes complexity.

 

 

Next time you meet a palentologist, do tell him that he is dealing with fantasy.

 

I think you mean anthropologist, but if I do meet one I would net hesitate to engage him.

 

 

”If you forget, TOE and it has gone a long and rigourous path of scientific scrutiny”

 

I simply disagree with this. It was adopted in anticipation of fossil discoveries that never materialized and should have been discarded on the basis of molecular level observations long ago. At this point, it is just illustrates the effectiveness of indoctrination.

 

 

“However the Biblical Creationism has been there for the last 5000 year, yet it has failed to provide evidence for itself.”

 

I’m not ready to get into Biblical authentication yet. Maybe soon, but I will be working long hours beginning tomorrow for some time to come.

 

 

“And you like the idea that you were made from Dirt?”

 

I find the Creation story much more reasonable than the idea that millions of species, living and extinct, came from primordial soup and random copy errors. Perhaps if there was so much as a detail in the way of lab evidence, I might feel differently. But there is not.

 

 

“How is Gender and complexity a evidence of a designer?”

 

Who in their right mind would consider Sandra Bullock a mutation?

 

The complexity issue stands on its own. If you find a camera in the woods, you will (hopefully) not say “Look what happened!” Why would anyone assume that biological organisms, self-replicating and millions of times more complex, could exist with no coercion or intellect involved? Only an inflamed religious mentality could do this.

 

 

“I thing there is an very interesting thread that is going on in the Colloseum called Black Box Intelligence, and even till date we haven’t agreed with each other about what do we mean by intelligence. Would you like you share your views on this topic?”

 

Perhaps, if I can find the time, which I will have very little of in the next couple of weeks.

 

 

“Second Generation Humans? what’s the emphirical evidence that there was a first generation human?”

 

The lineage all the way back to him is in the New Testament. What would be the empirical evidence for the common ancestor hippos and whales are supposed to share?

[crazy-tiger]

“You already went over this with crazy_tiger and neil”

 

Yeah, that was truly enlightening, but it won’t happen again.

Yes... because you got well and truely trounced and abandoned the arguments every time.

 

But you still repeat the same argument...

“100% useless?”

 

Yes. Delete or damage any component and the system is 100% useless.

Does that hold true for all systems? If yes, then explain why the reproductive system in a human can manage quite well without a penis, erectile tissue, vagina, fallopean tubes, womb, cervix, prostate...

If no, then how do you know it's true, since there are visual systems that lack ALL the components you insist are required.

 

The evidence strongly suggests that you are in error... (though you won't admit it)

“…I'm quite sure that more primitive species have fewer error-correction mechanisms and will therefore experience a higher mutation rate, even with a smaller genome.”[/i]

 

And I’m pretty sure that you cannot document this claim. Plus, you are only opening a can of worms with this. The fossil record captured bacteria that are supposedly over a billion years old, yet they are “virtually indistinguishable” from living, modern ones. If the more primitive species had poor correction mechanisms, how in hell did they stay morphologically the same for over a billion years?

"Morphologically the same" and "virtually indistinguishable" are not the same...

 

Morphologhically the same, in your context, means... "looks the same".

Virtually indistinguishable, in your context, means... "is almost biologically identical".

“Well on the scientific front on the position of evolution I don't see a lot of variations, there certainly are disagreements, but they are usually resolved through emphirical testing”

 

Empirical testing is not part of “evolutionary science”. As I pointed out, Punctuated Equilibrium is Gould and Eldredge’s construct that was formulated to explain why there cannot be any evidence for evolutionary gradualism.

And your explaination of the last 150 years of empirical testing of evolution both in the lab and in nature is...?

...I assuredly do not want creationism taught in publicly funded classrooms. Science and science only. What can be observed and documented without speculation.

So, speculation is not part of science then?

 

Think very carefully before you answer this, as it will demonstrate very clearly if you know what science is...

“And ironically many of these scientists are Christians themselves.”

 

We will see if they make the cut. Matt 7:21-23

And we have the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...

 

You're doing well... keep showing you don't have a clue what you're on about, we could all do with the laugh.

”If you forget, TOE and it has gone a long and rigourous path of scientific scrutiny”

 

I simply disagree with this. It was adopted in anticipation of fossil discoveries that never materialized and should have been discarded on the basis of molecular level observations long ago. At this point, it is just illustrates the effectiveness of indoctrination.

 

 

“However the Biblical Creationism has been there for the last 5000 year, yet it has failed to provide evidence for itself.”

 

I’m not ready to get into Biblical authentication yet. Maybe soon, but I will be working long hours beginning tomorrow for some time to come.

Not only do you ignore some evidence that is there, but you twist some more of it to say the opposite... then you decide that you're not ready yet to provide your own positional evidence.

 

Pitiful...

The complexity issue stands on its own. If you find a camera in the woods, you will (hopefully) not say “Look what happened!” Why would anyone assume that biological organisms, self-replicating and millions of times more complex, could exist with no coercion or intellect involved? Only an inflamed religious mentality could do this.

 

You did it... I can't believe you did it! You used an adaption of the "watchmaker argument"... You do know that, not only has it been debunked and proven false, but it's ALSO been used as evidence AGAINST an intelligent designer...

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/watchmaker.html

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design

 

 

Put simply, you are blasting us with old, tired, refuted arguments that were proven to be a load of crud decades ago...

 

Oh, and they knew the Earth was bloody ancient in 1800... over 50 years before Darwin came up with ToE.

 

 

 

What gets me though, is you're arguing that evolution denies any form of "supreme intellect" or "outside force"...

Does the phrase "Theistic Evolution" mean anything? Try to remember that evolution neither requires nor denies any form of god... so arguing against it on that front is a massive strawman.

 

Ooops... that's just what you're doing.

 

The lineage all the way back to him is in the New Testament. What would be the empirical evidence for the common ancestor hippos and whales are supposed to share?

Just out of interest... where is the empirical evidence for the validity of the bible?

[SkepticOfBible]

Eugenie Scott, who assembled the list in your T.O piece, is not a rationl person. She is only a political lobbyist who wants the government to adopt, fund and propagate her religious views.

 

So is her classification and explanation of various creationist group wrong?

 

 

I assume you mean taught, but no I assuredly do not want creationism taught in publicly funded classrooms. Science and science only. What can be observed and documented without speculation.

 

Well than I suppose that does throws out a lot sciences, especially medical/mechanical sciences and astronomy since many phenomenas in these sciences are not directly observed and are highly speculated. I suppose you don't trust the Einstein Theory of Relativity either.

 

Have you ever seen Gravity?

 

 

Because it is no more appropriate to invoke the point of view of muslims than it is an atheistic Darwinist’s religious beliefs.

 

Gee I didn't know that I was a Darwinist. I never worshipped him. And yeah BTW I am not an atheist.

 

But to anyone driven by ideological religious convictions, they are invalid. It is like pointing out to a Muslim that their prophet has no prophecies. It doesn’t phase them. If a person wants to believe in a gargantuan series of mutational fantasies to account for the phenomena of vision, then that is what they are going to believe. People put their faith in what they want to be true. Beliefs are not often related to objectivity and evidence.

 

Glad to know that you are frank about your beliefs

 

But humans use, for better or worse, thought processes. Mutations do not.

 

So when your white blood cells mutate after a fight with the disease(please excuse my layman language), are they mutating accidentally?or are you controlling the controlling them with your mind?

They are simply DNA replication failures. Accidents. Errors. You’ve been conditioned to think of evolution as responsive to the environment

 

Well creationist do believe in "Micro Evolution", don't they? How is Micro Evolution different from Macro Evolution? Are the mutation in Mirco Evolution accidental?

 

There are still lots of Ph’D’s who recognize the inconsistencies and problems in evolutionary thought.

 

Yes, they have identified problems in it, but they have not thrown in out in the Garbage. I did say that TOE is not infallible. On the other hand you are asserting that biblical creationism cannot be wrong.

 

 

By who? Lyell? It is still not proven.

 

I don't know, well the proof is right out there for anyone to inspect and see for themselves. And you haven't presented any positive evidence for a young earth?

 

We will see if they make the cut. Matt 7:21-23

 

What does this gotta to they with tha fact they are christians.

 

So are these Scientist casting out demons in Jesus name? Or as a matter of fact have you ever casted out demons? Could you tell us what he/her/it looks like?

 

When did Jesus say that the earth was 6000 years old?

 

Here is an defination of christian that is given by your own apologetist

 

Within Christianity there are very few essential doctrines that define what it means to be a

Christian. These essential doctrines are,

 

Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).

Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).

Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).

The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).

There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)

God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity)

Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation)

 

As long as a church/person believes in these essential doctrines, then it is Christian.

 

What is a christian?

 

So by your own definations many of these scientist are christians.

 

I hear they denounced pedophiles also. They’re right on the cutting edge of the issues aren’t they?

 

The Catholics do represent the majority of the christian world. Why is the Holy Spirit not telling them what he is telling you?

I didn’t see a post by anyone calling himself Hebrew from your link. But I am sure I’ve heard it all before.

 

In his other post he does introduce himself as a Hebrew

 

Yeah, this is a problem. It’s like when evolutionists tell you that you don’t understand how evolution works when you point out something stupid that they believe about it. If metaphorists (preterists, amillenialists, etc.) don’t like or understand something, they step into the role of intellectual and dismiss it as allegory.

 

And I am pretty sure that you also do exactly what you are accusing your fellow christians of?

 

SSel definately is producing a better case for a metaphorical reading than a literal one. Why don't rebut him?

 

Do you believe that everything in the bible should be taken literally?

 

Would I be right to say that you believe in Transubstantiation?

 

Or that pubic hair is, or ponytails or peacock feathers. How would evolutionists account for them?

 

I don't know about Ponytails, but scientist have come up with a good answer about the Pubic hair and Peacock feathers.

 

As a matter of fact, how do they account for the grossly impractical reality of gender at all? Asexuality is much more reliable if the issue is reproduction.

 

How is Gender a impracticallity?

 

But sexual reproduction is definately much more superior than asexual reproductions

 

“For a fantasy [evolutionary human ancestry] it certainly has certainly answered a lot of questions”

 

Such as?

 

“and is the basis for a lot of our life's solutions. . “

 

Such as?

Well a lot of our medical world has been driven by it. It certainly has accounted for a lot of evidence that has been lying around, and has told us where we came from.

 

I think you mean anthropologist, but if I do meet one I would net hesitate to engage him.

 

I meant those who study dinosaur(sorry about my spelling mistakes). But do engage a anthropologist too. Many of them are contactable by email, aren't they?

 

I simply disagree with this. It was adopted in anticipation of fossil discoveries that never materialized and should have been discarded on the basis of molecular level observations long ago. At this point, it is just illustrates the effectiveness of indoctrination.

Well the fossils have been found. Just not enough numbers that creationist want them to be. How do creationist account for dinosaurs?

’m not ready to get into Biblical authentication yet

 

When you ready, please go to the topic I started in the colloseum. It has got zero replies till date.

I find the Creation story much more reasonable than the idea that millions of species, living and extinct, came from primordial soup and random copy errors. Perhaps if there was so much as a detail in the way of lab evidence, I might feel differently.

 

What labotoary evidence did the creationist provide? Surely you must have seen it to convince yourself that biblical creationism is true.

 

Who in their right mind would consider Sandra Bullock a mutation?

 

I don't consider that pretty. Denise Richards would have been example. Man she is hot

The complexity issue stands on its own. If you find a camera in the woods, you will (hopefully) not say “Look what happened!”

 

But if I find that there are earlier versions of the camera(just enough of them), I could confidently say that it certainly has evolved.

 

Why would anyone assume that biological organisms, self-replicating and millions of times more complex, could exist with no coercion or intellect involved?

 

Didn't quite get it what you asked?

Perhaps, if I can find the time, which I will have very little of in the next couple of weeks.

Please do so.It would certainly enrich the discussions

 

The lineage all the way back to him is in the New Testament.

 

Oh I see, I finally understand your terminlogy. But you don't answer my original question, that if we look at a specimen that existed 3000 years ago, would the DNA makeup be different than ours?

 

What would be the empirical evidence for the common ancestor hippos and whales are supposed to share?

 

Well I guess when the scientists will find it, then they'll let you know. Most likely you are using the ancestor of hippo and whale to run your car.

 

The lineage all the way back to him is in the New Testament.

 

Did you ever notice that the genealogy doesn't match up with the genealogy given in Chronicles?And the fact that the Genealogy conflicts with the Genealogy given in luke.

 

So which Genealogy is correct?

[LadyFeline]

“The possible scenarios given for the evolution of the eye are not "completely impossible" (in fact they seem quite plausible)”

 

Well, I just disagree. Those possible scenarios are implausible and nothing short of desperate attempts to justify evolutionary religious dogma.

 

Hahah. I love it when young-Earth Creationist Bible literalists try to make themselves look like they know what they're talking about. It's cute. Especially when they scoff at science, and then go to sing praises to a dead man who supposedly (read: they have less proof for that "resurrection" than they claim scientists have for evolution) rose from the dead and floated to Heaven...

[SkepticOfBible]

I forgot to add this

 

Me and moon-god deities do not get along well.

 

I can totally relate to that. I can also not get along well with a Ancient Tribal War God.

[Asimov]

Yes, they are rare. We can have a contest about this if you like. You find neutral scientific literature that says point-blank that they are not, and I will respond to them with quotes that say the opposite.

 

 

Interesting how you didn't address MrSpooky's claim regarding human mutation rates, and regarded his comment with a mere gainsay. I'd like him to cite the information where he got that from.

 

 

Good point. Now apply that thought to the devolpment of any bio-system or organism and you will begin to comprehend why evolution is a preposterous idea.

 

Why? Apply what you said to billions of organisms over billions of years and your preposterous idea turns into a credible one.

 

This seriously flirts with granting a personality to natural selection.

 

No it doesn't, and even if it did what does that matter? It's an unguided non-random process based on environmental pressures.

 

There are evolutionists on record in recognition of the fact that selection is over-rated and problematic.

 

Good for them.

[sixoverme]

whats funny to me is that when creationists get told they are resorting to painting a world view and a view of science in the light of the bible, they resort to calling evolution a religion and those who believe in it are just like themselves and putting faith in their religion...nanenanebooboo so are you

 

oh and by the way...the theory of evolution operates upon its own rules as well...when new evidence arises it evolves to accomodate the new evidences...on the other hand creationism is stationary and will never be able to accept and grow according to new data...it cant...it can only bend the available data to support its presupposed beliefs

[Wertbag]

"Well the flood hasn't yet proven to me, and on the contrary there has been evidence which disproves the flood”

 

I can appreciate that. However there are simple questions that can be asked that flood theory has better answers for than does mainstream geology, in my view.

 

This caught my attention, what "simple questions" are better answered by a global flood than by science?

Certainly the obvious examples that YECs like to mention (grand canyon, oil, coal, and even the fossil record) really don't stand up to any investigation.

[Asimov]

Here's a family who has a mutation that render them immune to heart disease.

http://www.wilmington.edu/manila/wellness/cholesterol.html

 

Another mutation that allows people to live in high altitudes without suffering from altitude sickness.

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/204/18/3151

 

An emerging mutation that allows women to see UV light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/...4128183,00.html

 

A German family with a mutation that makes them unusually strong, including their baby who contains twice the muscle mass and half the body fat of children his age.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2004/06/24/512617.html

 

A family with hyperdense bones.

“Members of this family carry a genetic mutation that causes high bone density. They have a deep and wide jaw and bony growth on the palate. Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Genetics, along with Karl L. Insogna, M.D., professor of medicine and director of the Yale Bone Center, and colleagues, traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. In the recent study, the Yale team mapped the family’s genetic mutation to the same chromosome segment in LRP5. “It made us wonder if a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density,” Lifton said.

Family members, according to the investigators, have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the 2000 movie Unbreakable. “If there are living counterparts to the [hero] in Unbreakable, who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, they’re members of this family,” said Lifton. “They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. These people have about the strongest bones on the entire planet.”

http://info.med.yale.edu/external/pubs/ym_au02/findings.html

[txviper]

pritishd,

 

 

“So is her [Eugenie Scott’s] classification and explanation of various creationist group wrong?”

 

Somewhat. More misleading and insulting than wrong. But, I read the whole thing and I suppose if I had written it my own biases would have been as pronounced as hers. I withdraw my criticism.

 

 

“Well than I suppose that does throws out a lot sciences, especially medical/mechanical sciences and astronomy since many phenomenas in these sciences are not directly observed and are highly speculated. I suppose you don't trust the Einstein Theory of Relativity either.

 

Have you ever seen Gravity?”

 

Okay, I need to clarify. I don’t want religious world-views, yours, mine or anyone else’s attached to any of the scientific disciplines in the public schools. There is plenty that can be taught that is being neglected on account of the dispute over evolution and creationism. This is a distraction. The time and energy spent dancing around the campfire could be better spent learning about organic chemistry, physics or some other hard data pursuit.

 

 

“Gee I didn't know that I was a Darwinist. I never worshipped him. And yeah BTW I am not an atheist.”

 

That was not towards you in particular. If it seemed so, I apologize.

 

 

“So when your white blood cells mutate after a fight with the disease(please excuse my layman language), are they mutating accidentally?or are you controlling the controlling them with your mind?”

 

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. But in response, of course we do not have conscious authority over white blood cells or any other of our myriad automatic bio-functions. To me this is a dramatic indication that we were created to function at a certain level and for a specific purpose. To others, it is just the results of an accumulation of coincidental mutations.

 

 

“..creationist do believe in "Micro Evolution", don't they? How is Micro Evolution different from Macro Evolution? Are the mutation in Mirco Evolution accidental?”

 

I haven’t ever gotten around to talking about any of this since I’ve dwelt on what I perceive as impossible claims and expectations of evolutionary theory. Yes, creationism acknowledges micro-evolution, though I dislike the term as I think it is ambiguous. Adaptability is more descriptive (and I think the reality of it goes far beyond what evolutionary mutation/selection theory allows). Macro-evolution is supposed to be the fish to amphibs, amphibs to reptiles, reptiles to birds or mammals phenomena. Incredible adaptation is readily observable. Mac-evolution is not demonstrable by way of fossils, lab evidence or anything else.

 

 

“Yes, they have identified problems in it [TOE], but they have not thrown in out in the Garbage.”

 

I know. They can’t , for faith reasons.

 

 

“I don't know, well the proof is right out there for anyone to inspect and see for themselves. And you haven't presented any positive evidence for a young earth?”

 

Let me ask a couple of simple questions here. 75% of the exposed surface of the earth is covered by sedimentary “rock” thousands of feet deep. Where did all of this sediment come from? What accounts for changes in color and substance that distinguish the layers that are supposedly identifying great time periods?

 

 

“What does this gotta to they with tha fact they are christians.”

 

Being or calling yourself a “Christian” can mean several things.

 

 

“So are these Scientist casting out demons in Jesus name?”

 

I would expect not.

 

 

“Or as a matter of fact have you ever casted out demons?”

 

All the time. $25 and I chase them away.

No.

 

 

“Could you tell us what he/her/it looks like?”

 

Willie Nelson with goat’s feet.

 

 

“When did Jesus say that the earth was 6000 years old?”

 

He referred matter-of-factly to the Genesis record.

 

 

“Here is an defination of christian that is given by your own apologetist”

 

I have been correctly accused of being a minimalist concerning being saved. While I agree with every one of the points you posted, I do not believe that a comprehensive understanding of systematic theology is a necessary prerequisite.

 

 

“The Catholics do represent the majority of the christian world. Why is the Holy Spirit not telling them what he is telling you?”

 

This is a complicated subject. Probably more suited to another thread. But in brief, the HS is not whispering to me personally and ignoring other people. I have somewhat narrow take on the ministry of the Spirit.

 

 

“And I am pretty sure that you also do exactly what you are accusing your fellow christians of [concerning metaphorical interpretation]?”

 

Perhaps. But theological viewpoints that cancel or nullify entire books and chapters are a breach in my view.

 

 

“SSel definately is producing a better case for a metaphorical reading than a literal one. Why don't rebut him?”

 

Time more than anything else. But also this forum is not a place for evangelism. I don’t mind expressing my views and I have absolutely no qualms about criticizing evolution. But there is a reasonable protocol here that I think should be respected.

 

 

”Do you believe that everything in the bible should be taken literally?”

 

Yes, except the things that are obviously symbolic. For instance, I believe the antichrist is a literal individual personality. I consider non-literal interpretations somewhat elitist and over-developed. I have a hard time describing what I mean. Grinding away on something until it is meaningless or something like that.

 

 

”Would I be right to say that you believe in Transubstantiation?”

 

No you would not.

 

 

”How is Gender a impracticallity?"

 

It’s unnecessarily complicated. Not in accordance with natural selection.

 

 

”Well a lot of our medical world has been driven by it [evolutionary thought] It certainly has accounted for a lot of evidence that has been lying around, and has told us where we came from.”

 

I disagree with this assessment. Science only investigates the way things work. I don’t believe it can be reasonably argued that evolutionary thinking has enhanced any discoveries.

 

 

”fossils have been found. Just not enough numbers that creationist want them to be.”

 

It is the evolutionists who are disappointed in the fossil record.

 

 

“How do creationist account for dinosaurs?”

 

Day 6.

 

 

”What labotoary evidence did the creationist provide? Surely you must have seen it to convince yourself that biblical creationism is true.”

 

Our position maintains that origin of life and evolution cannot be duplicated in a lab. We are grateful to evolutionists for their consistent cooperation in demonstrating the veracity of our claim.

 

 

”…if I find that there are earlier versions of the camera(just enough of them), I could confidently say that it certainly has evolved”

 

By camera designers having been involved.

 

 

”…you don't answer my original question, that if we look at a specimen that existed 3000 years ago, would the DNA makeup be different than ours?”

 

I don’t know, but I salute your curiosity. I would be interested to see if what the coding/non-coding DNA ration would be in humans 5500 or so years ago.

 

 

"Did you ever notice that the genealogy doesn't match up with the genealogy given in Chronicles?And the fact that the Genealogy conflicts with the Genealogy given in luke."

 

Yeah, I am familiar with most of the alleged contradictions in the Bible. My favorite is the 12 tribes as noted in Genesis being different than the ones in Revelation.

 

 

"So which Genealogy is correct?"

 

If you’re validating your credentials to sit on David’s throne on the basis of your legal human father, Matthew. If through the mother of your humanity, Luke. Both parents were descendants of Abraham, Judah and David. Covenant, tribe and royal kinship. All things in order.

[Godless Dave]

I thought Christians weren't supposed to lie?

[SkepticOfBible]

Somewhat. More misleading and insulting than wrong. But, I read the whole thing and I suppose if I had written it my own biases would have been as pronounced as hers. I withdraw my criticism.

 

Well the only reason why quoted because I couldn’t find a christian site which gave that sort of classification.

 

I can see how you can get offended by it, but I didn’t find her information misleading, rather it confirmed my investigation too.

 

Okay, I need to clarify. I don’t want religious world-views, yours, mine or anyone else’s attached to any of the scientific disciplines in the public schools.

 

I am not talking about world views here. I was talking about what you defined as science

 

Science and science only. What can be observed and documented without speculation.

 

And all I said, based on that reasoning and defination, there are lot of sciences that is being taught in schools which are highly speculated and are unobservable by any direct method. Yet you have no issues about the teaching of those sciences. Why are you just targeting Evolution?Why not the rest?

 

Secondly I don’t think biology(which includes evolution), geology(age of the earth), astronomy, and social sciences has got anything to do with a particular philosphical or religious world view, because people from all religion(including christianity) are involved in the very sciences that you are attacking.

. The time and energy spent dancing around the campfire could be better spent learning about organic chemistry, physics or some other hard data pursuit.

 

Well I believe that scientists are following that path.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. But in response, of course we do not have conscious authority over white blood cells or any other of our myriad automatic bio-functions. To me this is a dramatic indication that we were created to function at a certain level and for a specific purpose. To others, it is just the results of an accumulation of coincidental mutations.

 

But they are not coincidental, your blood cells (living block of life as we were taught), have responded to the change and mutated. So would you still persist on the line that all mutations are random?

 

. Incredible adaptation is readily observable. Mac-evolution is not demonstrable by way of fossils, lab evidence or anything else.

 

But we have found fossils and bone remains of animals which are extinct, and the resembles of these extinct species to the current living ones is too uncanny, eg Mammoth, Sabretooth etc(I am sure others can add on)

 

I know. They can’t , for faith reasons.

 

Faith that is based on emphirical evidence. But this “faith”/worldview is not an infallible one.

Let me ask a couple of simple questions here. 75% of the exposed surface of the earth is covered by sedimentary “rock” thousands of feet deep. Where did all of this sediment come from? What accounts for changes in color and substance that distinguish the layers that are supposedly identifying great time periods?

 

Well what sort of answer are looking for?I can research on it and give you the answer but they will come from Geologists. But wait you don’t trust them. So what’s the point of answering your question?

 

Being or calling yourself a “Christian” can mean several things.

....

I have been correctly accused of being a minimalist concerning being saved. While I agree with every one of the points you posted, I do not believe that a comprehensive understanding of systematic theology is a necessary prerequisite.

 

Well most of the scientist will call them christian, and going by that defination I would say even Catholics are christians.

“When did Jesus say that the earth was 6000 years old?”

 

He referred matter-of-factly to the Genesis record.

 

Did he give any specifics? If not? why?

 

This is a complicated subject. Probably more suited to another thread. But in brief, the HS is not whispering to me personally and ignoring other people. I have somewhat narrow take on the ministry of the Spirit.

Then please do engage us(or atleast me) in another thread.

 

Perhaps. But theological viewpoints that cancel or nullify entire books and chapters are a breach in my view.

 

But you have no problems when they nullify whole verses.

Time more than anything else. But also this forum is not a place for evangelism. I don’t mind expressing my views and I have absolutely no qualms about criticizing evolution. But there is a reasonable protocol here that I think should be respected.

 

The colloseum is a good place to go, cause you are sort of protected from personal bashing

”Do you believe that everything in the bible should be taken literally?”

 

Yes, except the things that are obviously symbolic.

Which once again will be defined by you. I can show you ten verses from the bible, which are meant to be taken literal, but you are gonna say it is symbolic because you would not personally like it.

 

”Would I be right to say that you believe in Transubstantiation?”

 

No you would not.

 

And that is fine example of what I just said. For Jesus Transubstantiation was meant to be literal. More explanation can be seen in one of my post.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?act=...ndpost&p=125986

 

It’s unnecessarily complicated. Not in accordance with natural selection.

 

How so?

 

I disagree with this assessment. Science only investigates the way things work. I don’t believe it can be reasonably argued that evolutionary thinking has enhanced any discoveries.

 

Did the mechanism of adaptibility/micro-evolution come from creationism? Virtually all of pharmacetical and a majority of medical literature is based on these two principles that was expounded by evolutionary thinking.

 

It is the evolutionists who are disappointed in the fossil record.

 

Any statistic to back up your claim

Day 6.

 

Have creationist found overwhelming evidence of Humans and dinosaur coexisting?

Our position maintains that origin of life and evolution cannot be duplicated in a lab. We are grateful to evolutionists for their consistent cooperation in demonstrating the veracity of our claim.

 

Do they have any models that can be objectively tested in the real world? Do they refer to any geological, astronomical or biological data that can be objectively observed in the real world?

 

By camera designers having been involved.

 

Well atleast you won’t rule out the possibility that there was a progression towards what it appears now. Frankly I don’t mind the fact that we could be designed, but it seems to me that evolution is the path we took it.

 

I don’t know, but I salute your curiosity. I would be interested to see if what the coding/non-coding DNA ration would be in humans 5500 or so years ago.

Those are exactly the data that would convince casual skeptics like me. Perhaps you could request ICR to conduct such experiments since it seems that they have plenty of money to run their campaign.

 

If you’re validating your credentials to sit on David’s throne on the basis of your legal human father, Matthew. If through the mother of your humanity, Luke. Both parents were descendants of Abraham, Judah and David. Covenant, tribe and royal kinship. All things in order.

 

And all bet that you can’t prove the above assertions biblically. Here is my post which I made to another christian on this board, and till this date no one has rebutted it further

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...t=60&p=100964(Post 75)

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=4541&st=0#(Post 10)

 

If you do choose to respond please do so in the colloseum

[crazy-tiger]

“..creationist do believe in "Micro Evolution", don't they? How is Micro Evolution different from Macro Evolution? Are the mutation in Mirco Evolution accidental?”

 

I haven’t ever gotten around to talking about any of this since I’ve dwelt on what I perceive as impossible claims and expectations of evolutionary theory. Yes, creationism acknowledges micro-evolution, though I dislike the term as I think it is ambiguous. Adaptability is more descriptive (and I think the reality of it goes far beyond what evolutionary mutation/selection theory allows). Macro-evolution is supposed to be the fish to amphibs, amphibs to reptiles, reptiles to birds or mammals phenomena. Incredible adaptation is readily observable. Mac-evolution is not demonstrable by way of fossils, lab evidence or anything else.

Says who? That's right... Creationists.

 

Creationists have been redefining evolution almost from the start, and you've just taken it that last step past any other definition.

 

 

 

There are fish in North American that have specieated within that last 50 years... that's a whole new species! That is something that was predicted to happen by evolution, yet denied by creationism and ID... the FACT that it's happened vindicates evolution and the only way you can argue it is to deny reality.

 

Now, you can turn around and claim that is micro-evolution... it makes no difference. You can argue that it's still a fish... again, it makes no difference. Micro-evolution was just new breeds turning up... then it became new species... what next? New biological Families? That's the next "line" to stick with, since that's the next point of biological diversity. (which, by the way, you've skipped over in your definition)

What's going to stop the changes from producing a new family of fish? What's going to stop the changes from producing a family of fish with amphibious traits? (oh, I forgot... they already exist! Amphipnous cuchia)

 

 

So... there's very good evidence that fish can become air breathers... there's very good evidence that fish can make their way onto land... there are fish with amphibious traits...

 

What did you say? "Macro-evolution is supposed to be the fish to amphibs..." Well, that's happening right now!

[Samurai Tailor]

"Where does 1 in a billion come from? The commonly cited figure is something like 120 new mutations per unique human genome."

 

Both numbers are accurate. I was talking about a single replication. The starting point is not important. The imaginary effectiveness of mutations flies in the face of anything like reasonable probabilities.

Well, if you are talking about the base probability of any single mutation in the human genome, the probability is more like one in three billion. But again, mutations seem to concentrate at hot-spots, and long-gestation, long-life span organisms are the exception, rather than the rule.

This came in response to my pointing out that about 99% of mutations are neutral. That number can be quibbled about for a few percentage points. It doesn’t matter. You can calculate your own value for how many mutations are neutral. Just apply randomness to whatever percentage of the DNA molecule you want to consider as “junk” or non-coding.

I don't know what the exact percentage of neutral mutations is, but it is something meaningfully less than 99%. In any case, using numbers in isolation is a poor tactic; a hypothetical 99% neutral mutation rate is only a problem for evolution if it is a problem for evolution. It is not a problem just because it is 99%.

Thinking that successive nucleotide replication errors will be a beneficial and sequentially related series of events is a monumental absurdity, regardless of what is understood about “linkage”. You have to get in touch with the idea that you are trying to account for thousands of individual components involved in thousands of bio-systems simultaneously occurring in this fashion.

And you have to stop handwaving at the mitigating factors I have already mentioned.

It doesn’t matter. The reality is that statistically, mutations are more likely to be destructive to “developing” optical hard and software than they are beneficial. Your amazing selection and transfer processes would be busier deleting the screw-ups than they would ever be trying to preserve any advances. Do the math and calculate your own “X steps forward, X’ steps back” figure.

"The math" includes data about how many opportunities are available - something you seem desperate to ignore.

Yes. Delete or damage any component and the system is 100% useless.

Are you talking about a specific system? Because if you are talking about systems in general, you are spectacularly wrong.

The straw man is all yours. You are looking at this from the point of view of evolutionary religious dogma.

I love it when you get all poisoning-the-well-y.

You mentioned above that sight must have started developing in a simple organism. What that means is that the specialized forms all occurred independently after diverging from the (nebulous) original. “eyes of all sizes and configurations” is therefore totally meaningless because they are totally unrelated. The number of unrelated specialties only compounds your already gigantic mutations and statistics problem.

Except you have not shown there is a "mutations and statistics problem" beyond asserting that there is such a problem.

 

And in any case, the creationist claim is that there are no eye intermediates because 'what good is half an eye' or whatever this weeks nonsense is. "Half" eyes appear in abundance, so that claim fails.