The Religion of Evolution

[Meatros]

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.

Davies and Sarfati on supernova remnants
Keith Davies 16 quotes two astronomers and Jonathan Sarfati17 of Answers in Genesis repeats the quotes saying:

As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, 'Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?' and these authors refer to 'The mystery of the missing remnants'.
Both of them give the impression that astronomers cannot explain the number of observed supernova remnants assuming an old universe. The Clark and Caswell paper is online. Both quotes are on page 301. As the reader can easily verify, "Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?" is a rhetorical question. And "The mystery of the missing remnants" is followed by "is also solved."

Davies also misquotes the astronomer Donald P. Cox. Cox's article is also online and the reader can check the page where the quote was taken. What Davies quotes is in green and what he did not quote will be left in black:

The final example is the SNR population of the Large Magellanic Cloud. The observations (many collected in Mathewson et al. 1983) have caused considerable surprise and loss of confidence in simple models such as those in this paper.
The phrase "in simple models" changes the meaning considerably and thus the quote is out-of-context. More details on young-earth creationist misquotes on this subject can be found in the Misquoting and Paraphrasing section of the Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ.

I believe I will stick with AiG and Dr. Sarfati, over some student still working on her thesis. Note that she isn’t even a paleontologist. Please Meatros, don’t tell me you’re putting your faith in a paper written by a grad student…who’s to say she didn’t take her quotes out of context.

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

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by john6:63:
Please Meatros, don’t tell me you’re putting your faith in a paper written by a grad student…who’s to say she didn’t take her quotes out of context.

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.

 

[Rakka Rage]

The scientists are talking about what created the singularity, not the actual big bang.

'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."'

Try reading the rest of the article.

i have thanks.

Please explain to us all what the big bang has to do with the validity of evolution, or how the big bang somehow converts evolution into a religion.

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."'

 

[A_Christian]

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.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
[QB] '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."'

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):

In 1965, another sort of big bang echo — the cosmic background radiation — was discovered. Soon, it was assumed, cosmologists would be able to say, "Here's how everything happened, steps one, two, and three." Today cosmologists do think they know a fair amount about steps two and three — what the incipient cosmos was like in the instant after the genesis, how matter and energy later separated and formed the first galaxies. But as for step one, no dice. Nobody knows beyond foggy conjecture what caused the big bang, what (if anything) was present before that event, or how there could have been a prior condition in which nothing existed.

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

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."'

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

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
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.

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?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Again it seems as though you are skewing the definition of evolution.

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).

Evolution is a change in alleles over time, it cares nothing about becoming more complex or becoming "better".

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.

Whatever mutation is more successful in being passed on, is the mutation that takes hold. So again, what prevents microevolution, which is a change in alleles from becoming macroevolution over 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.

 

[Meatros]

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).

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

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.

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?

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.

Taken from here.

Selection cannot change the frequency of variants
Since evolution is, by definition, a change in the frequency of genes in a population, then this statement is equivalent to saying that selection cannot cause evolution. There are many experiments in the literature that directly demonstrate how false and ridiculous this statement really is. Perhaps the easiest examples for the non-biologist are those that involve human selection, as in breeds of dogs or cattle. In those cases selection for distinct characteristics has led to populations with differing frequencies of alleles (variants). Thus selection has been PROVEN capable of changing the frequency of variants or alleles in a population and we have every reason to believe that it did so in the past as well.

Directional selection (selection "for" or "against" something) in a static environment will lose variation. To get a more interesting result, you can look at either of two things:

1. Selection which is not directional. Here are some examples:

Frequency dependent selection. Forms which are rare are at an advantage. There are several decent real-world examples of this; female fruit flies prefer males who look "different", and animals which have immune system genes different from their neighbors' seem less likely to get diseases from them.

Heterozygote advantage. The organism with two different forms of the gene has an advantage over others. The classical example is sickle-cell anemia in humans, where the person with one sickle and one normal allele is protected from malaria.

Two kinds of selection pulling in different directions. For example, females may prefer brightly colored males, but so may predators. Some values for the parameters here will give a balance of different forms in the population.

2. Non-static environments. This is much harder to model, but interesting. You can easily get frequency-dependent selection out of an environment with two food sources, both subject to overexploitation. Environments which change over time either randomly or in a cycle can also maintain variability.

The simplest model I know in which something like speciation can be seen to happen is one that contains two factors:

There is a gene with two variants, and the heterozygote is worse than either homozygote.

There is the possibility for evolving reproductive isolation based on the first gene.

Reproductive isolation could be modeled in several ways. You could explicitly add a gene that controls mate recognition. You could arrange your simulated organisms on a grid and restrict most mating to near neighbors, and see if two populations separated from an initial mixture.

Don't forget that if you use random rather than strictly proportional selection (that is, if you use a random number to see who lives and who dies), population size makes a huge difference. It is almost impossible to maintain high variability in a tiny population, even with strong selection.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
You realize that observing something isn't the only way to substantiate it, right?

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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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?

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....

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.

Selection cannot change the frequency of variants
Since evolution is, by definition, a change in the frequency of genes in a population, then this statement is equivalent to saying that selection cannot cause evolution. There are many experiments in the literature that directly demonstrate how false and ridiculous this statement really is.

The author then goes own to defeat a strawman of his own invention. Is he or you accusing creationists of denying that dogs or cattle can be bred to reinforce desirable genetic characteristics? His argumentation truly is ridiculous. The fact is though that collies don't cease to be dogs because they are genetically specialized. Bred through enough generations the distinctive genetics that make one dog a collie could all but disappear in its descendents. However, no matter how long you breed collies with other collies, they will never cease to be dogs.

Frequency dependent selection. Forms which are rare are at an advantage. There are several decent real-world examples of this; female fruit flies prefer males who look "different",

This proves that man evolved from an ape how?

...and animals which have immune system genes different from their neighbors' seem less likely to get diseases from them.

Likewise, no proof here of macroevolution.

Heterozygote advantage. The organism with two different forms of the gene has an advantage over others. The classical example is sickle-cell anemia in humans, where the person with one sickle and one normal allele is protected from malaria.

... and do we have record of this being something other than an inherited attribute? Has there been a laboratory experiment of any kind at any time that reproduced the mechanics of this supposed evolution? Even under your system of belief, our common ancestors were the source of both those with and without this genetic quality. This is not an example of increased information.

2. Non-static environments.

In non-static environments, animals with the genetic ability to adapt, do. Those without this ability go extinct. These facts are testable worldwide. However, there is no evidence that changes in environment cause a species to acquire genetic capabilities that were not present before. God made his created things very adaptable.

Environments which change over time either randomly or in a cycle can also maintain variability.

In other words, they maintain (not change, not acquire) their genetic capabilities to the extent that some of the population will survive if the environment shifts again. This points to design, not chance. It points to inherited abilities, not acquired ones.

The simplest model I know in which something like speciation can be seen to happen is one that contains two factors:

There is a gene with two variants, and the heterozygote is worse than either homozygote...

Note that under this description of speciation, information is being lost or subordinated, not gained.

No creationists that I have ever seen denies this type of "speciation". This line of argumentation makes me wonder if you know as much about creation science as you imply.

All this author has done is argue against silence leaving the reader to assume that his opponent objects. It is deception.

 

[Rakka Rage]

 

[Meatros]

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.

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?

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.

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.

The author then goes own to defeat a strawman of his own invention. Is he or you accusing creationists of denying that dogs or cattle can be bred to reinforce desirable genetic characteristics? His argumentation truly is ridiculous. The fact is though that collies don't cease to be dogs because they are genetically specialized. Bred through enough generations the distinctive genetics that make one dog a collie could all but disappear in its descendents. However, no matter how long you breed collies with other collies, they will never cease to be dogs.

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)?

This proves that man evolved from an ape how?

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

... and do we have record of this being something other than an inherited attribute? Has there been a laboratory experiment of any kind at any time that reproduced the mechanics of this supposed evolution? Even under your system of belief, our common ancestors were the source of both those with and without this genetic quality. This is not an example of increased information.

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.

In non-static environments, animals with the genetic ability to adapt, do. Those without this ability go extinct. These facts are testable worldwide. However, there is no evidence that changes in environment cause a species to acquire genetic capabilities that were not present before. God made his created things very adaptable.

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:

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.

Plus:

Evolution requires genetic variation. If there were no dark moths, the population could not have evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to increase or create genetic variation and mechanisms to decrease it. Mutation is a change in a gene. These changes are the source of new genetic variation. Natural selection operates on this variation.

Plus:

The cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation.

The Pattern of Macroevolution
Evolution is not progress. The popular notion that evolution can be represented as a series of improvements from simple cells, through more complex life forms, to humans (the pinnacle of evolution), can be traced to the concept of the scale of nature. This view is incorrect.

All species have descended from a common ancestor. As time went on, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments. Thus, evolution is best viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing currently living species. No living organisms today are our ancestors. Every living species is as fully modern as we are with its own unique evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms," atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity.

A related, and common, fallacy about evolution is that humans evolved from some living species of ape. This is not the case -- humans and apes share a common ancestor. Both humans and living apes are fully modern species; the ancestor we evolved from was an ape, but it is now extinct and was not the same as present day apes (or humans for that matter). If it were not for the vanity of human beings, we would be classified as an ape. Our closest relatives are, collectively, the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp. Our next nearest relative is the gorilla.

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.

In other words, they maintain (not change, not acquire) their genetic capabilities to the extent that some of the population will survive if the environment shifts again. This points to design, not chance. It points to inherited abilities, not acquired ones.

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.

Note that under this description of speciation, information is being lost or subordinated, not gained.

No creationists that I have ever seen denies this type of "speciation". This line of argumentation makes me wonder if you know as much about creation science as you imply.

All this author has done is argue against silence leaving the reader to assume that his opponent objects. It is deception.

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.

 

[NeilUnreal]

...stages of the development of the baby...

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

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by NeilUnreal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...stages of the development of the baby...

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 </font>[/QUOTE]The entire concept of recapitulation is fraudulent and biologists know it. De Beer specificially denied its applicability at any stage as early as 1940 (he wrote texts on embryology and evolution).

Here is what actually happens: there are major and irreducible differences in the first cellular divisions when comparing the five groups of animals (birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals). Some later (but still early) stages bear some resemblance and then the differences exert themselves again in startling and unique ways. There is no possibility of recapitulation at either end of the gestational period.

That's even presuming there was something to recapitulate!

 

[BobRyan]

Galation
If you've been reading the posts on this board, you've seen a great deal of evidence for evolution

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

 

[Meatros]

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:

The opportunity for natural selection to operate does not induce genetic variation to appear -- selection only distinguishes between existing variants. Variation is not possible along every imaginable axis, so all possible adaptive solutions are not open to populations. To pick a somewhat ridiculous example, a steel shelled turtle might be an improvement over regular turtles. Turtles are killed quite a bit by cars these days because when confronted with danger, they retreat into their shells -- this is not a great strategy against a two ton automobile. However, there is no variation in metal content of shells, so it would not be possible to select for a steel shelled turtle.

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).

 

[Helen]

And when does a turtle become something other than another variety of turtle, or a guppy become something other than a guppy?

Or a dog not a dog?

OR even the little old lowly E.coli something other than an E.coli?

You see, none of this has EVER been seen, even in little old prokaryotes.

Other than the variations you mention which do not cause a change in the basic identity of the organism, evolution is a product of imagination and ....well....more imagination.

 

[Meatros]

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

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Edgeo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] Evolutionism has to claim so pretty radical things to defend itself -

Evolutionist - claims: Scientific Standing of Evolution and its Critics
. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.
Scientific creationism is 100% _____. So-called Creation Scientists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data.

Edgeo -- Okay, well, nothing radical so far. I hope that you have some better examples.

Only if you "like" evolutionist practics of "arguing from the void of what is not science".

As Gentry pointed out - BOTH scientific reasoning AND scientific data ARE rejected by the devotees of evolutionism AND THEN after censoring the views that "disconfirms their myths" they say "what? No other theories???".

How vacuous. Surely anyone with a modicum of objectivity would not fall for their ploys at that point EVEN if they were still an evolutionist.

EVoltionist article claims --
Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument - is a distortion if you observe that it contradicts the self-organizing requirements of evolutionism)

...
Most importantly, scientific creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory ...

EDGEO --
Still true, nothing radical here.

But to the thinking objective mind it is "obvious" that the theories and scientific data presented by scientists like Gentry ARE in fact "theories and data" EVEN if you "don't like them".

The "evolutionist devotee Hopes" to "define fact" as "whatever evolutionism speculates" and then define "science" as "That happy speculation", and then pretends that this is not obvious to anyone reading their work
.

...to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. (simply put "IF God did it - it did not really HAPPEN") Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments,

Edgeo
Basically correct ... if the type of age dating that Steve Austin does is a typical example.

Gentry's work can "hardly" be called "Not conducting an experiment - a scientific experiment".

But of course "we forgot" that no science is "science" if done by a scientist that believes in God's statements on creation INSTEAD of evolution.

(sorry Robert Gentry - we can't hear you speaking in our censorship booth) nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Edgeo -
Correct again. I have seen creationists INVITED to publish in by some reviewers, but they cannot find the nerve to do so.

Obviously evolutionism hopes to turn a blind eye BOTH to its own lack of proof for macroevolution AND to its practices of censorship on scientists like Gentry AS IT STOPS publishing their data once it is obvious that the scientist "does not BELIEVE in evolutionism".

(Again - we can't hear what we choose to shut out)

The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no -- the fair thing to do is exclude scientific creationism ...

Here we see naked censorship promoted by the evolutionist link. But we need to "pretend" we don't notice that if WE too are faithful evolutionist devotees.

Edgeo --

No problem here. Creationism is simply not science. It can be brought up in comparative religions or some such class.

Hmmm. So comparative religion classes are where we study radio halos?? Comparative religion is where we will observe the distribution of Po218 vs Po210.

Comparative religion classes is where they study the sedimentation rates of major river deltas.

Comparative religion classes is where we are supposed to study the expected Helium by product of Uranium Lead decay in the Earth's crust.

Oh "yes" that is right - those fun "religion classes".

How about the "religion class" where elephants turn back into sea animals by walking into the surf? That is "True" religion.

But "if you don't believe" in the myth that fish climbed out of the sea - became elephants and then walked back into the sea to become whales WELL then you might as well denie the holocaust.

Edgeo

If we are to be completely 'fair' as you seem to suggest, I think we should include holocaust denial as well. Wouldn' that be 'fair?'

Case Closed!!


</font>

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

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Web Link: ...from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. There is voluminous evidence for it. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories.

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

(though competing theories are spelled out in this article)

Until scientific creationists formulate a scientific theory, AND submit it for TESTING, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas.

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.

Edgeo

True. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd better have something more than a bunch of incredulous whining.

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".

(Hint: when was the last time you saw MacroEvolutionism TESTED?)

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.

Edgeo --
Frequently, actually. It is tested every time a prediction is made regarding the fossil record.

And the "prediction" being??

That fossils "exist"??

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

Science is based on an open and honest look at the data.

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.

Edgeo -- Still on track.

Web link: Science belongs in science classes. (ALL AGREE but then Evolutionists claim) Evolution is science. Creationism is not. It's that simple.

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?

Edgeo --
Okay, now, what was your point? This all sounds pretty reasonable to me...

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

Web link continues: The creationist attack on public school education means that school children are denied the possibility of learning about the most powerful and elegant theory in biology. Politicians are willing to allow the scientifically ignorant, but politically strong, to wreck the educational system in exchange for votes.

People interested in evolution, and science education in general, need to closely watch school board elections. Creationist "stealth" candidates have been elected in several regions. Thankfully, many have been voted out once their Views became apparent.

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.

Edgeo --
Sounds right. Do you deny this?

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.

Web Link: The majority of Americans are religious, but only a minority are religious nuts.

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.

Web link: The version of religion the far right wants to impose on America is as repulsive to most mainstream Christians as it is to members of other religions, atheists and agnostics.

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.

Most informed religious people see no reason for biological facts and theories to interfere with their religious beliefs.
...

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

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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

Originally posted by Helen:
You see, none of this has EVER been seen, even in little old prokaryotes.

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.