Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
And your evidence is?

In regard to your comment:

"The explanation of the gene changing is a fairly genius way to explain what is seen in nature via the fossil record. Though at this point I'm kind of surprised you're basing your argument on the solidity of the fossil record in the first place. Have you come to accept radiocarbon dates and the old age of the earth already, John, or were you an OEC from the get go?"

Without any evidence backing it up, are you claiming that because someone offers an explanation for something, it should be taught and considered fact?

You don't understand what evidence IS

"Without any evidence backing it up, are you claiming that because someone offers an explanation for something, it should be taught and considered fact?"

You really don't get it, do you? Where exactly is the proposal of how the bat grew wings via a gene mutation 50 million years ago taught as a fact in textbooks? I really would like you to show me the book and the page number.

Obviously, the evidence is not proof. None will be, that's not how it works.

But the thing is, science doesn't teach PROOF. PROOFS are found in mathematics. If you're looking for proofs, take a geometry course.

Science teaches theories and demonstrates the facts that can be explained by them. Facts are not taught. Facts need not be "taught", because they are THERE. They are FACTS. It's THEORIES that need teaching.

If you disapprove of the theory, then what you need to do is find a set of facts that cannot be explained by the theory. It's just that easy. People have been trying to do it for 150 years, now it's your turn. If you succeed, fame and wealth is your reward.

Try another forum

In regard to your comment:
“You really don't get it, do you? Where exactly is the proposal of how the bat grew wings via a gene mutation 50 million years ago taught as a fact in textbooks? I really would like you to show me the book and the page number.”

1. Since textbooks are not typically on the web for obvious reasons, we suggest that you write these ‘prestigious’ organizations below and tell them they are misrepresenting evolution.

2. Since you now don’t believe that mutations caused these changes, please tell us what mechanism of evolution actually did and use it in a step-by-step hypothetical process to change a ‘paw’ into a wing.

From: 'Understanding Evolution,'which is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.
"Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.”
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

"Bat wings are basically paws with really long fingers and skin stretched between them. In order for these wings to evolve, the rate of growth of finger bones must have increased relative to the growth of the rest of the bat's body — or perhaps the rate of growth of the rest of the body decreased relative to the fingers.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_04

From Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History:
“Analogous structures are the product of convergence. Convergence occurs when similar structures evolve in species that are not closely related. For example, wings have evolved a number of times in the course of the history of life. In each instance of independent appearance, the structure is unique. Insects, reptiles, birds, and mammals have all evolved wings, but they are constructed of different materials. This convergence has occurred because genetic mutations combined with natural selection created structures that permitted flight in different organisms.”
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html

In regard to your comment:
“But the thing is, science doesn't teach PROOF. PROOFS are found in mathematics. If you're looking for proofs, take a geometry course. Science teaches theories and demonstrates the facts that can be explained by them. Facts are not taught. Facts need not be "taught", because they are THERE. They are FACTS. It's THEORIES that need teaching.”

1. Your comment exemplifies why our education system needs to be overhauled.

2. Since absolute truth is not your specialty and you believe that ‘facts’ are not necessary anymore, there is no point for you to post on this forum. Perhaps you can find an evolutionary psychology forum that would suite you better.

In regard to you comment:
“If you disapprove of the theory, then what you need to do is find a set of facts that cannot be explained by the theory. It's just that easy. People have been trying to do it for 150 years, now it's your turn. If you succeed, fame and wealth is your reward.”

Fact: We can see, we can hear, we can touch … and we interpret all those functions in a coordinated manner with intelligence.

Since NO ONE has come up with an explanation of how the numerous intricate components for each function miraculously arose, let alone how the linkage was created to coordinate them, I’ll assume the check is in the mail. (You can keep the fame.)

Try another approach

"..., we suggest that you write these ‘prestigious’ organizations below and tell them they are misrepresenting evolution. "

I will do no such thing, because evolution is not being misrepresented.

"Since you now don’t believe that mutations caused these change..."

I have admitted no such thing. Please clarify why you think I believe this.

"Your comment exemplifies why our education system needs to be overhauled"

Oh my, now we're going into the "we don't need public schools" route? How very Kent Hovind of you. Why don't you run for a school board post and just find out how your ideas go over with the public?

"Since absolute truth is not your specialty..."

Absolute truth is NOBODY'S specialty, my dear. Those who claim to know it are lying.

"...and you believe that ‘facts’ are not necessary anymore..."

Again, I never said such a thing. Where exactly did I say that facts are not NECESSARY to teaching science? Facts exist, for better or for worse. They can be demonstrated or shown. But they are far from "unnecessary".

I'm sensing a pattern here of claiming I said things I did not say...

"Since NO ONE has come up with an explanation of how the numerous intricate components for each function miraculously arose, let alone how the linkage was created to coordinate them..."

...therefore the entire theory can be thrown out the window, right?
Sorry, that's just plain silly. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say.

Just because the details for the answers you seek are not known TODAY does not mean anything except exactly that. There exists a theory to describe the general process by which further study can and will give clearer insight.

How, exactly, would one study how those things developed via ID or Creation? Stand back and say "i don't understand it, therefore, goddidit"? That's what Ken Miller lovingly called a "science stopper", and nobody (except a few fringe paranoiacs) will stand for that if we intend to develop as a society.

A MUST READ

In response to your comment below admitting that evolutionists have not come up with a feasible process that would create novel or more complex traits to appear:

“Just because the details for the answers you seek are not known TODAY does not mean anything except exactly that. There exists a theory to describe the general process by which further study can and will give clearer insight.
How, exactly, would one study how those things developed via ID or Creation? Stand back and say "i don't understand it, therefore, goddidit"? That's what Ken Miller lovingly called a "science stopper", and nobody (except a few fringe paranoiacs) will stand for that if we intend to develop as a society.”



1. Without a bit of empirical evidence of evolution occurring, and no mechanism known that would cause novel or more complex traits to appear, how interesting that evolutionists believe that teaching evolution is good science.

2. Contrary to the UNPROVEN premise that creation science "stop science," here is the PROOF that evolutionary science has been a detriment to genetic research:

Referring to the long held evolutionary claim that began in 1972, evolutionists decided that most genetic material was ‘junk.’ For decades, evolutionists arrogantly and willfully turned a blind eye to the importance of it, only to find out now that it’s actually the key to how genes function.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185538.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/JunkDNA111903.htm

The most famous of these evolutionists was Richard Dawkins, who coined the term ‘parasitical’ when referring to ‘repetitive DNA’ in his book, ‘The Selfish Gene’ written in 1976.

"...And there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, “tandem repeats”, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. ... Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% - considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it."
Richard Dawkins, 1998

And, speaking of Ken Miller:

"From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b-globin genes."
- Ken Miller, 1994

How interesting that creationists knew all along that the Creator had created more than just ‘junk.’
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

Junk DNA refutation in the Bible? Please show us where.

"In response to your comment below admitting that evolutionists have not come up with a feasible process that would create novel or more complex traits to appear"

Let me make this abundantly clear. I did not say this, nor will I ever admit to this.

The process is mutation and natural selection. This is ToE.
The SPECIFIC DETAILS of this particular process (which genes changed and in what order and how they survived the particular environmental pressure) are not currently known.

"Without a bit of empirical evidence of evolution occurring..."

You again are actively ignoring ALL of the abundant evidence to the contrary. Guess what, it's even *empirical*, too.

I don't understand why you are insisting on assuming I'm saying something I'm actually actively contradicting.

"Referring to the long held evolutionary claim that began in 1972, evolutionists decided that most genetic material was ‘junk.’ For decades, evolutionists arrogantly and willfully turned a blind eye to the importance of it, only to find out now that it’s actually the key to how genes function."

Wow, gee whiz, how fascinating that science gets better over time. Hunh. Wonder how that happens. Science also thought the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Funny how science can update itself as new evidence is found, regardless of the Bible.

Was science attempting to *impede its own progress* at any time? NO. It just DIDN'T KNOW at that time. Further investigation improves science knowledge.

"How interesting that creationists knew all along that the Creator had created more than just ‘junk.’"

"God don't make no junk", eh?

Heh, it's great that these people predicted that a use would be found for the "junk DNA", but what research did CREATIONISTS and "cdesign proponentists" do to further that idea?

How interesting that creationists claim to have known all along about everything because of a 1700 year old book based on 2000 year old stories. Happens with a lot of stuff.

Care to show us the chapter and verse that explains even ANY basic detail about DNA and RNA?

Please be specific.

No. You Show US Where

"Wow, gee whiz, how fascinating that science gets better over time. Hunh. Wonder how that happens. Science also thought the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Funny how science can update itself as new evidence is found, regardless of the Bible."


Are you suggesting that the Bible says that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth? If so, please show US where.

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

Replying to:

"In response to your comment below admitting that evolutionists have not come up with a feasible process that would create novel or more complex traits to appear"

Let me make this abundantly clear. I did not say this, nor will I ever admit to this.

The process is mutation and natural selection. This is ToE.
The SPECIFIC DETAILS of this particular process (which genes changed and in what order and how they survived the particular environmental pressure) are not currently known.

"Without a bit of empirical evidence of evolution occurring..."

You again are actively ignoring ALL of the abundant evidence to the contrary. Guess what, it's even *empirical*, too.

I don't understand why you are insisting on assuming I'm saying something I'm actually actively contradicting.

"Referring to the long held evolutionary claim that began in 1972, evolutionists decided that most genetic material was ‘junk.’ For decades, evolutionists arrogantly and willfully turned a blind eye to the importance of it, only to find out now that it’s actually the key to how genes function."

Wow, gee whiz, how fascinating that science gets better over time. Hunh. Wonder how that happens. Science also thought the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Funny how science can update itself as new evidence is found, regardless of the Bible.

Was science attempting to *impede its own progress* at any time? NO. It just DIDN'T KNOW at that time. Further investigation improves science knowledge.

"How interesting that creationists knew all along that the Creator had created more than just ‘junk.’"

"God don't make no junk", eh?

Heh, it's great that these people predicted that a use would be found for the "junk DNA", but what research did CREATIONISTS and "cdesign proponentists" do to further that idea?

How interesting that creationists claim to have known all along about everything because of a 1700 year old book based on 2000 year old stories. Happens with a lot of stuff.

Care to show us the chapter and verse that explains even ANY basic detail about DNA and RNA?

Please be specific.

Yup, the Bible is a great science book:

"Are you suggesting that the Bible says that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth? If so, please show US where."

Flat Earth:

Job 38:12-14
Matthew 4:1-12
Daniel 4:10-11
Isaiah 40:18-23

- http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Flat_Earth.htm

Geocentrism:

ECCLESIASTES 1:4-7
Genesis 15:12,17
Psalms 104:19
PSALMS 50:1

-from http://www.geocentricbible.com/

Your further postings will be deleted

This forum was created to give evolutionists an opportunity to empirically prove evolution to be true, as well as creationists to counter with conflicting evidence.

Since evolution is presented and taught as a fact, the burden of proof is upon evolutionists, rather than creationists to prove creation is true.

In response to your claim the the Bible states several time that the earth is flat, why don't you look these over and think about it again:
NOTE the definitions of "ends":
Either extremity of something that has length: the end of the pier.
The outside or extreme edge or physical limit; a boundary: the end of town.
The point in time when an action, an event, or a phenomenon ceases or is completed; the conclusion: the end of the day.
A remainder; a remnant.

Job 38:12-14
Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?
It takes on form like clay under a seal,
And stands out like a garment.

Matthew 4:1-12
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:

Daniel 4:10-11
These were the visions of my head while on my bed:
I was looking, and behold,
A tree in the midst of the earth,
And its height was great.
The tree grew and became strong;
Its height reached to the heavens,
And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth.

Isaiah 40:18-23
To whom then will you liken God?
Or what likeness will you compare to Him?
The workman molds an image,
The goldsmith overspreads it with gold,
And the silversmith casts silver chains.
Whoever is too impoverished for such a contribution
Chooses a tree that will not rot;
He seeks for himself a skillful workman
To prepare a carved image that will not totter.
Have you not known?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
He brings the princes to nothing;
He makes the judges of the earth useless.

ECCLESIASTES 1:4-7
One generation passes away, and another generation comes;
But the earth abides forever.
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,
And hastens to the place where it arose.
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

Genesis 15:12
Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.

Genesis 15:17
And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.

Psalms 104:19
He appointed the moon for seasons;
The sun knows its going down.

PSALMS 50:1
The Mighty One, God the LORD,
Has spoken and called the earth
From the rising of the sun to its going down.

Re: Your further postings will be deleted

Deleting postings that pose a rational argument. That has got to be a first for creationist. Not only that but here we have a classic case in witch you contradict yourself in the very first sentence of your response.
"This forum was created to give evolutionists an opportunity to empirically prove evolution to be true, as well as creationists to counter with conflicting evidence" So it makes me wonder why further postings would be deleted? Unless what you really meant to say is something like.
I choose not to listen to your argument and will dismiss it and any other claims, including "empirical proof" as we have made up our minds.
But how I wish you would have stopped there. Instead you went on and quoted verse after verse of the bible.
None of witch have anything to do with the topic at hand. Well I guess it should be expected from creationists.

I would like to however comment on a point you tried to make, and I quote.

"Since evolution is presented and taught as a fact, the burden of proof is upon evolutionists, rather than creationists to prove creation is true."

Well there are a couple of things wrong with this statement the first of witch is the word evolutionists. Taking in to account what has been said on the website. It seems to refer to evolutionists as a religion or creed. Yet there is no such organization as I know of no group of people that gather together in a place of worship on Sunday or any given day, and chant and recite prayers to their sacred fossils/monkeys. They wouldn't even get a tax break for claiming they are evolutionists so lets throw that wanton abuse of the English vocabulary out.
Evolution is a theory and not a religion.

That said let's move on to the second part of that statement "The burden of proof" Well if detailed studies of fossilized remains, reproductional variation, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium do nothing to sway your opinion. Then it is feasible to say that nothing ever will.

The fact that Evolution is taught in schools is the results of our nations initiative to teach the most accurate science that is presently available to us. It seems so very strange to me that Evolution would pose any threat to religion since there is absolutely no dogma in science. Yet here we are. It is nothing at all like comparing apples and oranges, at least those are both fruits. It is more like the equivalent of trying to compare a race car and mitochondria and suggesting that they have a symbiotic relationship.

Well I have said enough. feel free to sensor any further posts as it is provably the only thing you have left to cling to and your final insult to morality and to those who have paid for your idea of "freedom of speech" with their lives.