Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

It's not to difficult a task to show that the fossil record does not support the theory of the evolution of man or anything else. I'll have only one more "change" in the theory itself that will end this part of my refuting of ToE. This next part deals with DNA. We've been dealing with it a little bit already.

The argument from DNA, unless another term is better, will also go well if we can agree on the definition of important terms. So I would like to start with a list of words that we need to define and agree on before we present arguments for and against the theory of evolution from DNA.

1. evolution

2. bridge

3. randomness

4. function​

All of us know what logical fallacies are and we should list those that are relevant to our debate. For example;

Equivocation

Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

I will show that the argument for evolution via DNA for the evolution of man is built on fallacies.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yes, I realize quite a few neo cons have started rejected a good education in the liberal arts and sciences. That is because they are too stupid to realize that having an education in the liberal arts and sciences does not necessarily make one a liberal. Plus they are too cowardly to actually face reality squarely. Well in the end it is their loss. They are the ones who end up acting like complete idiots.

Bit of advice......

Dont hold yer breath.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's not to difficult a task to show that the fossil record does not support the theory of the evolution of man or anything else. I'll have only one more "change" in the theory itself that will end this part of my refuting of ToE. This next part deals with DNA. We've been dealing with it a little bit already.

The argument from DNA, unless another term is better, will also go well if we can agree on the definition of important terms. So I would like to start with a list of words that we need to define and agree on before we present arguments for and against the theory of evolution from DNA.

1. evolution

2. bridge

3. randomness

4. function​

All of us know what logical fallacies are and we should list those that are relevant to our debate. For example;

Equivocation

Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

I will show that the argument for evolution via DNA for the evolution of man is built on fallacies.

--Dave

opcorn:

 

[noguru]

Bit of advice......

Dont hold yer breath.

I don't have to. It is already happening. You just don't realize it because you have chosen oblivion.

 

[noguru]

It's not to difficult a task to show that the fossil record does not support the theory of the evolution of man or anything else. I'll have only one more "change" in the theory itself that will end this part of my refuting of ToE. This next part deals with DNA. We've been dealing with it a little bit already.

The argument from DNA, unless another term is better, will also go well if we can agree on the definition of important terms. So I would like to start with a list of words that we need to define and agree on before we present arguments for and against the theory of evolution from DNA.

1. evolution

2. bridge

3. randomness

4. function​

All of us know what logical fallacies are and we should list those that are relevant to our debate. For example;

Equivocation

Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

I will show that the argument for evolution via DNA for the evolution of man is built on fallacies.

--Dave

Dave, are you already convinced that evolution from a single common ancestor is impossible?

If so, then why are you only now asking to clearly define these terms?

Do you also realize that any word has a vague penumbra of meaning surrounding it, and therefore context is a very relevant issue in regard to the more precise use of a term?

 

[6days]

Changing frequency of alleles in a gene pool is observable empirical science. It fits the Biblical creationist model allowing organisms to adapt to changing environment. We can call that evolution if you wish.

Actually creationist "evolution" needs a mega fast forward function since only generic "kinds" could have hoped to have all fitted on that gopher-wood barge a few thousand years ago.

Good point Alwight. Yes the creationist model is that God programmed organisms within enough genetic information that variation and adaptation can happen very quickly. And that is what the scientific evidence shows. We have many examples of fish, birds and other animals changing within just a few generations. Millions of years are not required for animals to speciate.

The ark quite easily fit all all the different kinds of animals as the capacity was well over 500 railways cars.

However if you then use the word 'evolution' referring to your belief in a common ancestor, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. The one definition is observable science; while the second definition is a belief system not supported by evidence.

Common ancestry is rather what best explains the evidence such as observable ERVs within DNA sequences.

ERV's (which is a misnomer) best fit the Biblical model. Modern science is starting to realize that 'ERV's' have purpose and design.

And yes there are plenty of papers acknowledging that there has to be some mechanism that increases genetic information, if ToE is true. In fact extensive research has been done on bacteria and flies, trying to tweak their genome a with mutations. Thousands upon thousands of hours in the lab,has produced countless examples of a loss of information mutation. But evolutionists can't account for for the pre-existing information.... And they can even manipulate that information to cause the gain that molecules to man evolution needs.

Here is one example showing that desperate length evolutionists will go too trying to find a gain of information..... in 'Trends in Genetics', there was an article titled“A golden age for evolutionary genetics? Genomic studies of adaptation in natural populations"

The article states “Of course, to some extent the difference between loss and gain could be a question of semantics, so for example the loss of trichomes (epidermal cells on flies) could be called gain of naked cuticle"
HA HA HA....Aren't they funny? They want to call a loss of something a gain. SURE!!!!! Are they really so desperate? It like plucking feathers from an eagle, then claiming it has gained the ability to remain grounded.
The evidence best fits the Biblical creation model. Life was created by the Supreme Intelligence, and programmed with information allowing adaptation to various environments. In the beginning, God created.

So it's a global scientific conspiracy then…

You can believe that if you wish...
But I think that's silly. Do you seriously think that?

and we should believe YECs instead? Even though for them a literal Genesis must always take precedence over any rigorous and peer reviewed science, however convincing, well explained and evidenced it is.

That wouldn't be such a bad idea if you started out believing that God created... Rather than starting from a belief that life comes from non life.
The Biblical model and science has always proved the evolutionist model incorrect.
(For example junk DNA, useless vestigial organs, human evolution frauds and shoddy interpretations etc)

 

[6days]

The point is Dave that ERVs are pretty conclusive evidence and imo virtual proof of common descent that is available from living individuals today, no fossils are required.

Yes, thank you. And that has become the biggest change of all in the evolution of the theory of evolution, no fossils required. I could not have said it better.

The reason is not because DNA is all we need but rather because the fossil record has failed to prove that evolution occurred.

Well said Dave.

 

[MichaelCadry]

So then, what you are saying, is that there is or was no Jesus, whom many people believe in, and He is written about in very many books on earth now. If He was just a myth, how could a 'myth' be so real?? And if you do believe in Jesus, then you need to believe what He said, and that is that there was a God and Creation. It is recorded in thousands and thousands of books. What gives? Where is the big controversy? I told you that God created Adam billions of years ago, in six days, and rested on the seventh. I also told you that the 'Lord God' (Jesus and God combined as One) formed a number of Adams at different times in the earth. That is why it is written, "And He called "THEIR" name 'Adam' in the day they were created. And also how the Lord God made our Adam, and breathed the breath of Life in him, and put him in a place called the Garden of Eden. And he saw that the man was lonely and so He then formed the beasts and fowl from the ground and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. (See Gen. 5:2 and Gen. 2:18, 2:19).

That is your reason for fossils. That's why you have fossils that you can't explain with Evolution. Because the Creation is True. Now quit dissing God or the Lord God. He EXISTS and you have the nerve to contradict Him??!! I'm not trying to scare you either, so don't think that. Just think about it. Read carefully and study the KJV. Not your science books, which have not sold as many copies as the Bible, etc.

In God's Name,

Michael

 

[6days]

Changing frequency of alleles in a gene pool is observable empirical science. It fits the Biblical creationist model allowing organisms to adapt to changing environment. We can call that evolution if you wish.

However if you then use the word 'evolution' referring to your belief in a common ancestor, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. The one definition is observable science; while the second definition is a belief system not supported by evidence.

And yes there are plenty of papers acknowledging that there has to be some mechanism that increases genetic information, if ToE is true. In fact extensive research has been done on bacteria and flies, trying to tweak their genome a with mutations. Thousands upon thousands of hours in the lab,has produced countless examples of a loss of information mutation. But evolutionists can't account for for the pre-existing information.... And they can even manipulate that information to cause the gain that molecules to man evolution needs.

Here is one example showing that desperate length evolutionists will go too trying to find a gain of information..... in 'Trends in Genetics', there was an article titled“A golden age for evolutionary genetics? Genomic studies of adaptation in natural populations"

The article states “Of course, to some extent the difference between loss and gain could be a question of semantics, so for example the loss of trichomes (epidermal cells on flies) could be called gain of naked cuticle"
HA HA HA....Aren't they funny? They want to call a loss of something a gain. SURE!!!!! Are they really so desperate? It like plucking feathers from an eagle, then claiming it has gained the ability to remain grounded.
The evidence best fits the Biblical creation model. Life was created by the Supreme Intelligence, and programmed with information allowing adaptation to various environments. In the beginning, God created.

YOU are the one obsessed with the idea of information, but not so obsessed that you have taken the time to understand what a concept of information can and cannot tell you. You wave around this information idea like it is a magic shield against all arguments. It is not a magic bullet that sinks evolution, whether you idolise the idea or not.

Hmmm ....
I wonder who it was that asked me this "Can you find any research paper that describes the essential increase in information, 6days"
Oh wait. It was you!!!

GC...you don't see to understand that there is no magic shield and there is no magic bullet. Biblical creation and evolutionism are beliefs about the past. They are not falsifiable.

Why is your faith not strong enough to just reject evolution despite the evidence for it? Why do you feel the need to have your faith validated by science?

Haha. GC...I like you! Let me ask you this... Why is your faith not strong enough to just reject biblical creation despite the evidence for it? Why do you feel the need to have your faith validated by science?
If you think my question us silly...you might understand why I laughed st yours.

Science is worship. The more Biblical creationists understand science, the more awe we have for our Creator.

 

[6days]

I don't mean to interrupt, but I decided to come back to TOL because I missed you guys, and all of my other friends. Just wanted to let you know.

Praise God and Jesus, and the Holy Spirit,

Michael

We dont always agree Michael but glad you are here

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6DAYS!

Thanks for the welcome back!! I sure missed you, but you are holding you own here well, and with Dave's help, you can't go wrong. What I wrote is the Truth, but you don't have to agree with me. That is okay. I am just so thankful to hear from you again!! Delmar said I could come back. I'm paid up too!

May God Continue To Bless You With Great Abundance And Quick Countenance,

Michael

 

[alwight]

Good point Alwight. Yes the creationist model is that God programmed organisms within enough genetic information that variation and adaptation can happen very quickly. And that is what the scientific evidence shows. We have many examples of fish, birds and other animals changing within just a few generations. Millions of years are not required for animals to speciate.

Clearly you are an Aladdin's Cave of dreamed up YEC nonsense 6days.

The ark quite easily fit all all the different kinds of animals as the capacity was well over 500 railways cars.

I'm sure your imaginary ark can be as big as you need to imagine it to be.

ERV's (which is a misnomer) best fit the Biblical model. Modern science is starting to realize that 'ERV's' have purpose and design.

Do tell? Just as they are starting to realise that pigs fly?

You can believe that if you wish...
But I think that's silly. Do you seriously think that?

Do you seriously think I'd believe that 6days?
Otoh if you don't believe in a global scientific conspiracy then presumably you must really think that that creationists are smarter than scientists at their own science, which is of course also dreamed up idiotic nonsense.
But if you can believe in a literal global food and a massive gopher-wood (whatever that is) barge that pairs of animals somehow made their way to, that wasn't just a kid's story but was actual truth, then you could literally believe anything at all I suspect. lain:

That wouldn't be such a bad idea if you started out believing that God created... Rather than starting from a belief that life comes from non life.

Then why do you bother with science at all since you clearly have presupposed your beliefs and have no respect for science as a source of knowledge? :idunno:
Science for you is apparently just something that you think can be distorted to fit whatever you have already pre-concluded is true from your ancient scripture.

The Biblical model and science has always proved the evolutionist model incorrect.
(For example junk DNA, useless vestigial organs, human evolution frauds and shoddy interpretations etc)

Pull the other one 6days you're always good for a laugh. :chuckle:

 

[noguru]

Good point Alwight. Yes the creationist model is that God programmed organisms within enough genetic information that variation and adaptation can happen very quickly. And that is what the scientific evidence shows. We have many examples of fish, birds and other animals changing within just a few generations. Millions of years are not required for animals to speciate.

Were you not one who was arguing for Blyth's model of YECism which includes the fixity of species?

 

[noguru]

Then why do you bother with science at all since you clearly have presupposed your beliefs and have no respect for science as a source of knowledge? :idunno:
Science for you is apparently just something that you think can be distorted to fit whatever you have already pre-concluded is true from your ancient scripture.

That much is very clear. YECs like 6gays would like to "have their cake and eat it too" when it comes to science. They want to make their literal interpretation of Genesis a foundational assumption in the philosophy of science. Then they want to claim other people's assumptions are what leads to wrong conclusions in science, despite the fact that they do share the other foundational assumptions in the philosophy of science (they just add one more - a literal interpretation of Genesis).

 

[alwight]

Were you not one who was arguing for Blyth's model of YECism which includes the fixity of species?

I'm sure it matters not to 6days so long as the words seem to correspond to whatever his current bald assertions are, it doesn't actually need to join up.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, are you already convinced that evolution from a single common ancestor is impossible?

If so, then why are you only now asking to clearly define these terms?

Do you also realize that any word has a vague penumbra of meaning surrounding it, and therefore context is a very relevant issue in regard to the more precise use of a term?

Evolution means that we came from a single common ancestor to a primitive ape.

Evolution also means everything living came from a single common cell that started it all, yes?

I've "said" before you are guilty of equivocation, but now I will "prove" that you are.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

It seems the problem for YECers it the huge respect science has as a result of its great success at explaining the natural world. They want that mantle of respect, but are happy to misrepresent science to do so.

Why can't they just say out loud that they think science is bunk and they trust their faith in a particular interpretation of a specific old book and be done with it? Science will never go where they want it to go or agree with what they claim it agrees with, so it just makes them look silly.

But, scientifically literate people are not the target of YEC ideas, are they? The Wedge plan was to manipulate moderate religious people in positions of power who don't understand science but can be persuaded that the charletans are as responsible and expert as real scientists.

 

[noguru]

Evolution means that we came from a single common ancestor to a primitive ape.

Evolution also means everything living came from a single common cell that started it all, yes?

I've "said" before you are guilty of equivocation, but now I will "prove" that you are.

--Dave

Dave you need to follow the history of scientific thought here.

Darwin's idea of "origin of species" was just that. That species were not fixed as Blyth had thought. Darwin even admits in his book that God might have created multiple original life forms (though he could not say what those were) at the beginning, but that from there all the biodiversity we see today has been achieved.

Darwin did not have the advantage of the fossil record to make a more specific model. Since then the geochemical, paleontological, genetic, geological... evidence logically suggests a single common ancestor and an old earth. Though the evidence for the age of the earth had been logically suggesting an earth older than 10k years prior to Darwin.

You have no idea what "equivocation" is.

 

[noguru]

It seems the problem for YECers it the huge respect science has as a result of its great success at explaining the natural world. They want that mantle of respect, but are happy to misrepresent science to do so.

Why can't they just say out loud that they think science is bunk and they trust their faith in a particular interpretation of a specific old book and be done with it? Science will never go where they want it to go or agree with what they claim it agrees with, so it just makes them look silly.

But, scientifically literate people are not the target of YEC ideas, are they? The Wedge plan was to manipulate moderate religious people in positions of power who don't understand science but can be persuaded that the charletans are as responsible and expert as real scientists.

There are some that have the courage and honesty to do exactly that. It is those YECs I respect for that courage and honesty.

Default_Dave definitely behaves like a charlatan, with his irresponsible street preaching.

 

[gcthomas]

Evolution also means everything living came from a single common cell that started it all, yes?

Dave, as you have been told before, that is not the meaning of evolution. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." (Wikipedia)

You are guilty of dishonesty here, misrepresenting a theory in order to criticise! The idea of a single ancestor is a natural deduction from the success of evolution, but it is not a requirement of the theory. If it was discovered that there were two separate ancestral lines, evolution would not be dimmed at all. Evolution theory ≠ single common ancestor theory. Different names, different theories.