The Religion of Evolution

John-She has a degree relevant to what she is studying-what's Safarti got? a degree in CHEMISTRY??? Seeing as you are the one who apparently values a degree in the field they are criticizing, would you care to comment on Safarti's LACK of a degree in biology?

In any event, I wasn't questioning his academics, merely his honesty. As noted here. and here.

He's deceptive.

I'll be sitting here waiting for you to take your foot out of your mouth any time now.

 

We can play the "qualifications" game if you'd like John, but I'm fairly certain that you realize you'd lose. How many creationists have degrees in evolutionary biology (or even biology?)? Remarkably few.

If you think she took the quotes out of context, then prove, I've offered some examples where Safarti has been "less then honest", so now it's your turn.

 

'The more scientists testily insisted that the big bang was unfathomable, the more they sounded like medieval priests saying, "Don't ask me what made God."'

i have thanks.

you may be assuming too much...

'And no matter how you slice it, calling on unknown physical laws sounds awfully like appealing to the supernatural."'

 

Well Meatros,

The evolutionists at one time taught, that the
stages of the development of the baby in the
womb demonstrated evolution from a single
cell organism. I just carried their hypothesis one step further.

I never believed this religious belief of theirs;
however, they promoted it anyway.

 

Let's think about this for a second. The big bang does not postulate how it came into being. Yet, this quote is implying that exactly this, if it's not, then why is the section I've bolded there?

I mean, haven't you stopped and thought "gee, why aren't the saying the big bang is wrong?", they aren't they are saying what people have been saying since the theory began, ie, "what created the singularity from which the big bang came from".

Here's a section you didn't quote(bolding mine):

Need I go on? There's nothing really new in this article.

I'm assuming too much?? Tell me, what relevence does your quoted section of this article have in this conversation?

 

How about living in the now A_Christian? You keep bringing up things without any evidence. Why would that be I wonder? Could it be because you haven't any?

 

No. I am making a clean separation between what is observed and provable and that which some infer from the provable to assume/conclude the unprov(en, able).

I have no objections to animals adapting within their God given abilities to do so. This is observed fact that requires no debate whatsoever. I object to the notion that this fact necessarily leads to the conclusion that lower life forms evolved into higher ones over any period of time.

Complexity and the known laws of genetics combined with mathematical probability. Organisms in nature do not become genetically more complex. Microevolution employs the information already available.

It is highly improbable that any living organism incorporated foreign matter into its gene structure or experienced a wholesale "shift" in a gene's information then not only survived but gained an advantage and then somehow within its lifetime had the same type of mutation to its RNA so that it could then pass on its advantage to its progeny. This before we even touch on the tremendous odds against a species using sexual reproduction accomplishing such a feat.

 

You realize that observing something isn't the only way to substantiate it, right?

Again, what stops microevolution from becoming macro after enough time has passed? You are dodging the issues and you are attempting to obfuscate the term evolution.

Given enough 'micro'evolutionary changes, what prevents the species from changing? What is the barrier to prevent it?

Taken from here.

 

Of course. However that is a strange argument for you to make since you reject the idea that God created everything in 6 literal days out of hand because you cannot observe the mechanisms He might have employed.

OTOH, something that cannot be proven/nullified in a lab and cannot be directly observed falls outside the limits of what constitutes legitimate science according to evolutionists.

Again, what stops microevolution from becoming macro after enough time has passed? You are dodging the issues and you are attempting to obfuscate the term evolution.

Given enough 'micro'evolutionary changes, what prevents the species from changing? What is the barrier to prevent it?

Taken from here. </font>[/QUOTE] I scanned the section you cite. Nothing there contradicts what I wrote nor is there any evidence presented that if animals are bred correctly they will eventually become a species containing more genetic information than their ancestors.

 

Putting words in my mouth Scott? I reject the literal 6-day creation because of a number of reasons, including evidence to the contrary and the logical improbability of it (no sun=no heat, no plants).

I've provided direct evidence of macroevolution, you chose not to read it. Is it evolution's fault if you choose not to keep up with the data?

You are misrepresenting evolution. Evolution is not about 'magical new traits appearing from nowhere', evolution is about traits combining and forming new traits. So again, what stops microevolution from becoming macro-aside from your rhetoric? You haven't presented a shred of evidence to suggest that their *is* anything to stop micro from becoming macro.

You should re-read the article, you clearly didn't understand it. You are describing evolution. What you don't understand is that species is an arbitrary term, there aren't clear cut lines inbetween species.

So quit dodging the issue and answer: What prevents micro from becoming macro. What mechanisms prevent enough microevolutions from changing a species (other then time)?

Strawman, I *never* said that. Mankind shared a common ancestor.

Nice strawman, evolution is not a system of belief, unless you'd like to include gravity as a system of belief. So quit throwing up strawmen and answer the question: What prevents micro from becoming macro? I've asked it dozens of times and all you've given me is some hazy distinction of 'species' which you've failed to qualify.

You don't get it, and maybe that's why you don't accept evolution-you have a misrepresented version of it in your head (no offense intended).
Here's an intro to evolution:

I'm only going to quote a few sections, but I do suggest you reading the rest:

Plus:

Plus:

All of this might not make a lot of sense, because it's taken out of context, but I do urge that you read the entire article.

This points toward natural selection, not design. It sounds as though you understand some of evolution, but you are getting it confused; natural selection is not random nor is it by chance.

It sounds as though you are expecting evolution to 'miracle' up beneficial mutations-this isn't the case. There are unadvantageous mutations of genes as well as advantageous mutations.

 

There's actually a lot of merit to the concept of recapitulation. It's true that the earlier, naive ideas were oversimplified -- though any arguments about out-of-date textbooks and overzealous illustrations are irrelevant to the subsequent science. However, the way gestation works and the way regulatory genes operate during development means that it is easier to "add evolution" near the end of the process.

-Neil

 

And all of it "debunked" in the Creationist responses since (even the evolutionists admit) macroevolutionism can not be observed - it has to be speculated.

Bob

 

I was thinking about it some more Scott and I think what *might* be a sticking point for you is the idea that a species evolves by the creation of alleles that were not previously there.

Again, from the same source:

As you can see, the factor of evolution is in fact, what is already in the genes. It's one of the reason's that we such a high percent of DNA with chimps (to put it simply).

As you know, there are a multitude of different alleles in a creature. They change over time via sexual reproduction (for a simplistic example, a blue eyed person has a child with a brown eyed woman, the child has green eyes). Over enough time there are enough differences to constitute a different species (although, as I said, the term 'species' is somewhat erroneous).

 

Big talk Helen. Now would you care to explain why microevolution would not become macroevolution over enough time?

 

And as Richard Dawkins noted - that is just silly it "is nonsense". (From the quote I gave by Dawkins).

Bob

 

Said the article as it denied ITS OWN presentatino of competing theories.

Evolutionism refuses to "Admit that when it DOES NOT TEST" its theories for abiogenesis - that SAME failure to TEST - is allowing a world of "competing theories" in under the same lack of testing.

Well said - if only evolutionism could be dealt with that way. But all that whining from the Evolutionists - has gotten them this far without the tests - without the "proof".

It is not observable - so the evolutionist claim is that it is "frequently observed" to "not be observable" and that is what they call "testing" IF the test is FOR macroevolution.

And the "prediction" being??

That fossils "exist"??

In that case - Creationism HAS BEEN TESTED!! (on that same basis alone).

Here it at least - we see above - one sliver of truth finally asserted in the document regarding science and the truth that the God of science makes about Creation.

The beauty of circular reasoning as employed by evolutionism - they first posit a "truth" that science belongs in the science classes - THEN they "assume their own argument" and claim that "Evolution IS science and Gods Creation model IS NOT" - rather than "proving it".

And who "goes" for such circular logic?

Case closed. The "Religion of Evoltionism" is conveying "antiknowledge" as predicted by Patterson.

And so now - censorship is "Endorsed" by the evolutionist where school board members will not be "tolerated" if they "accept God's creation model for the ORIGINS of The Heavens the Earth the Sea and ALL that it is in them".

Pure censorship. Pure intolerance. Pure "idea purging" where "only evolutionist IDEAS" are tolerated by the "thought police". EVEN for school board membership.

Welcome to Oz, evolutionism's land of "true believers" in the mythologies of evolutionism - where other "thoughts" are dealt with by the queen of hearts in wonderland.

Here is "the truth" of what our evolutionist friends are promoting. To differ with them is to be "a nut" case and to be censored from participation in community service such as school boards.

And? And so we see that the common thread for evolutionism is that it is the realm of atheist, agnostic etc but not the realm of Bible believing Christians who accept the "Account" Genesis 2 God gives in His Word "For in SIX days the LORD MADE the Heavens and the Earth and the Sea and ALL that is in them" Exodus 20:11.

Here is where we see the evolutionist claim that "no only are FACTS to be accomodated by the Gospel BUT fleeting-ever-changing THEORIES of atheist evolutionists MUST ALSO be held as superior to the Gospel. IT MUST MOVE to make whay for THEM.

Bob

 

How to you propose to observe something that takes place over such long periods of time? It took bacteria about a BILLION years to become something else.

What we observe in "macroevolution" is observed in the fossil record. I direct you back to this.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000261

The transition from reptiles to mammals. It took 240 million years. A little longer than my lifetime. But the transition is remarkable. All of the major characteristics that define the differences between the two being observed as they change in concert with one another. Until, after a very long time, ou have a very different animal than what you started out with. This is evolution on a grand scale. This is not just speciation, or one new trait or metabolic pathway. This is an entirely new class!!!

If you disagree, I invite you to provide a better interpretation of the evidence. Because it is good evidence with a good explanation.