Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creationism question.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Creationism question.

    I've been doing some research on Evolution vs. Creationism and, because it seems a lot of people here are supporters of creationism, I thought you all might be a knowledgeable crowd on the subject.

    I am trying to find information about current scientific creationist projects. I'm trying to find programs that are working to find affirmative evidence for creationism (as opposed to negative evidence against evolution, which is a very separate thing). Are there any research programs going on that I can take a look at? Archeological digs? Studies? Experiments? Fund grants for practical application research?

    So far I've been disappointed. I've only been able to find theologically based programs (i.e. preaching sermons from the Bible); no lab work results or published papers. Does anyone know of any scientific projects along the lines I'm looking for?
    Female. 17. Thinking hard about Christ.

  • #2
    Originally posted by SirTanTee View Post
    I've been doing some research on Evolution vs. Creationism and, because it seems a lot of people here are supporters of creationism, I thought you all might be a knowledgeable crowd on the subject.

    I am trying to find information about current scientific creationist projects. I'm trying to find programs that are working to find affirmative evidence for creationism (as opposed to negative evidence against evolution, which is a very separate thing). Are there any research programs going on that I can take a look at? Archeological digs? Studies? Experiments? Fund grants for practical application research?

    So far I've been disappointed. I've only been able to find theologically based programs (i.e. preaching sermons from the Bible); no lab work results or published papers. Does anyone know of any scientific projects along the lines I'm looking for?

    Here are some notable archaeological finds you can research:

    Larsa-Weld Prism
    Giglamesh Tablet
    Adam and Eve Seal
    Creation Tablet

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sold Out View Post
      Here are some notable archaeological finds you can research:

      Larsa-Weld Prism
      Giglamesh Tablet
      Adam and Eve Seal
      Creation Tablet
      Thanks. These made for some interesting historical research!

      However, I am also searching for some more modern scientific research. In order to falsify evolution, I would think that creationists would have active research on subjects such as:

      - Finding fossil records in rocks reliably dated to different times than expected. (For example, finding a dinosaur fossil dated to an unexpectedly modern time, or a modern animal fossil dated to much unexpectedly ancient time.)

      - Gathering empirical evidence to support a "Young Earth" age of 6,000 to 10,000 years.

      - Finding an animal that violates a proposed tenant of evolution. For example, finding an animal with homogenous bone structure to an animal that it does not share a recent common ancestor with.

      - Brainstorming on how to apply creationism science to modern life in order to make scientific discoveries and enhance human life. A well-supported scientific theory can be utilized and applied in many ways! For example, principles of evolution are applied to research involving subjects live bacteria and cancer. How is creationism science being applied to make strides and help other fields?

      However, I haven't been able to find anything of the sort. Most of the proposed evidence has to do with trying to debunk evolution, not trying to support creationism. So I am drawing a blank here.
      Female. 17. Thinking hard about Christ.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SirTanTee View Post
        Thanks. These made for some interesting historical research!

        However, I am also searching for some more modern scientific research. In order to falsify evolution, I would think that creationists would have active research on subjects such as:

        - Finding fossil records in rocks reliably dated to different times than expected. (For example, finding a dinosaur fossil dated to an unexpectedly modern time, or a modern animal fossil dated to much unexpectedly ancient time.)

        - Gathering empirical evidence to support a "Young Earth" age of 6,000 to 10,000 years.

        - Finding an animal that violates a proposed tenant of evolution. For example, finding an animal with homogenous bone structure to an animal that it does not share a recent common ancestor with.

        - Brainstorming on how to apply creationism science to modern life in order to make scientific discoveries and enhance human life. A well-supported scientific theory can be utilized and applied in many ways! For example, principles of evolution are applied to research involving subjects live bacteria and cancer. How is creationism science being applied to make strides and help other fields?

        However, I haven't been able to find anything of the sort. Most of the proposed evidence has to do with trying to debunk evolution, not trying to support creationism. So I am drawing a blank here.
        Do you believe in a young earth (6000 yrs old)?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SirTanTee View Post
          A well-supported scientific theory can be utilized and applied in many ways! For example, principles of evolution are applied to research involving subjects live bacteria and cancer.
          Why don’t you define your concept of “principles of evolution” and we can compare it with the metaphysical Darwinian notion of *common ancestry*. Can you explain (scientifically) how the dead-end lung of a dinosaur can morph into the flow-through avian lung – what is the naturalistic mechanism and how exactly does it work? No fair claiming a long period of time (gazillions of years) and a little sprinkling of fairy dust here and there - we are looking for real scientific evidence.

          Please don’t present the old worn out “evolution of the gaps” non-argument or the circular logic of the practitioners of evolutionism who amusingly “expound” on the notion that Darwinism is true because Darwinists say Darwinism is true. And don’t refer me to the many Darwinian websites that use the above “arguments” ad nauseam. Try to be original. Are you are Darwinist?

          Comment


          • #6
            God had some pretty good questions for Job you might want to review. Also have you seen this site:

            http://www.icr.org/
            Robin

            Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established that, unless one loves the truth, he cannot know it. - Blaise Pascal
            And Jesus saith unto him [Thomas], I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6
            Discernment is not needed in things that differ, but in things that appear to be the same. - Miles Sanford
            Those who compromise with Christ’s enemies may be reckoned with them. - C.H. Spurgeon

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SirTanTee View Post
              I've been doing some research on Evolution vs. Creationism and, because it seems a lot of people here are supporters of creationism, I thought you all might be a knowledgeable crowd on the subject.

              I am trying to find information about current scientific creationist projects. I'm trying to find programs that are working to find affirmative evidence for creationism (as opposed to negative evidence against evolution, which is a very separate thing). Are there any research programs going on that I can take a look at? Archeological digs? Studies? Experiments? Fund grants for practical application research?

              So far I've been disappointed. I've only been able to find theologically based programs (i.e. preaching sermons from the Bible); no lab work results or published papers. Does anyone know of any scientific projects along the lines I'm looking for?
              You will find what you are looking for here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks for the link, Mograce2U and RogerW. They have some interested works (including counter-arguments to articles that I have read) and so I will try to give them a thorough read as soon as possible.

                To losthorizon: Okay, I am going to try to address all your points below. You have a lot of (rather angry sounding) questions and information in your post.

                Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                Why don’t you define your concept of “principles of evolution” and we can compare it with the metaphysical Darwinian notion of *common ancestry*.
                Ookay. What I was basically referring to was the idea that standard deviations within any population produce a range of traits. Some of these traits are desirable, some don't generally matter too much, and others are useful for the members of these populations. Given time (and with the interference of natural events such as disasters, isolation of populations the bottleneck affect), natural selection will occur, making the useful traits of any given population more and more predominant, and eventually causing speciation and divergent evolution within different sectors of the given population. Please explain to me why you see the theory of evolution as metaphysical - the theory itself, by its very nature, does not address the issue of theism or abiogenisis (the beginning of life). It does not attempt to.

                As I was saying in my earlier post, but I didn't elaborate on, studying evolutionary principles has helped scientists to advance many fields. They are apply knowledge currently to efforts like species conservation, solving molecular puzzles using bioinformatics and how this knowledge can be used to fight cancers and viruses more effectively using proteins like interferons, genetic engineering and germ line therapy.

                Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                Can you explain (scientifically) how the dead-end lung of a dinosaur can morph into the flow-through avian lung – what is the naturalistic mechanism and how exactly does it work? No fair claiming a long period of time (gazillions of years) and a little sprinkling of fairy dust here and there - we are looking for real scientific evidence.
                I am going to preface this two warnings: this may get really long, because you asked, and also science is not my best subject (had to fight for that B in biology honors...) and so I'm just going to quote directly and hope I don't mangle anything. There is definitely controversy around the Dinosaur-to-Bird theory, but the current answer to your question is basically that the proposed ancestor of modern birds - theropods - did not have a dead-end lung. It had a flow-through lung that predated the evolution of birds. Here's some recent research on the issue of the respiratory system in modern birds versus dinosaurs:

                "A recent paper in Nature (11), shows that theropod dinosaurs have vertebrae pneumatized in a way that is very similar to modern birds. The authors have investigated the well preserved fossil of a theropod dinosaur called Majungatholus atopus and have found that the vertebrae possess very close similaritiies in pneumaticity compared with an extant bird (the sarus crane).



                However, the similarity between the pneumatic features of theropod dinosaurs and modern birds was already known through a number of studies (12). So what does this new study indicate that we didn't know before? Detailed analysis of the individual vertebrae and ribs reveal a pattern of pneumaticity that is entirely consistent with the pattern in living birds - that is, the cervical air sac connect to vertebrae and ribs in the neck region of the spine, and in the thoracic vertebrae nearest the head; the abdominal air sac connects with the tail and sacrum vertebrae and the thoracic vertebrae nearest the tail; and the lung itself connects with the mid-thoracic vertebrae. This pattern is the same in all birds and is exactly what is found by detailed analysis of the vertebrae of M atopus. So it is not the discovery of pneumatised vertebrae in this fossil that is new, but the fact the pattern of pneumatisation is found to be the same as in living birds and consistent with a uni-directional flow-through breathing system. This situation is consistent for all known non-avian theropods, suggesting that it is a derived characteristic of the first theropods and spread throughout the entire clad of theropods including modern birds

                Furthermore, O'Connor and Claessens point out that in order for either uni-directional or bi-directional flow-through ventilation to work, the tail end of the abdominal cavity has to change volume more than the head of the cavity. Indeed that is the arrangement in birds, and analysis of the skeleton of theropods shows that they possess the appropriate characteristics in the articulation of the ribs with the vertebrae to show that the tail end of the trunk can change volume mure than the head end, just as in birds. Indeed air sacs and associated features at the tail end of the abdominal cavity are known to have developed in chameleons, snakes and certain types of lizard and this indicates that the tail end of the lung in the entire sauropsid (a group that includes birds and most reptiles and dinosaurs) is able to develop air sacs and invade the tail end of the skeleton.

                So, this recent study has shown that non-avian theropod dinosaurs had the necessary anatomy for flow-through ventilation similar to extant birds and, that in the evolution of the flow-through system, the tail end air sacs likely developed before those at the head end of the trunk."

                There are definitely problems with the theory, as with any theory. For example - the difference in development between theropod and bird ankle bone morphology. However, there is enough really good evidence to give it serious consideration. In addition to the similarity in the respiratory system between modern birds and theropods, there are around 20 more fascinating anatomical congruencies as well as some transitional fossils. I will post them if you are interested, but this has taken up so much space already that I don't want to elongate it further with a list! I have to read up more on the subject; I actually knew nothing about it until you brought it up. @_@

                Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                Please don’t present the old worn out “evolution of the gaps” non-argument or the circular logic of the practitioners of evolutionism who amusingly “expound” on the notion that Darwinism is true because Darwinists say Darwinism is true. And don’t refer me to the many Darwinian websites that use the above “arguments” ad nauseam. Try to be original.
                I'll try to be original, polite, present logical sound arguments and relevant scientific queries. I started this thread because I want scientifically based (not theologically based) creationist research. Feel free to inform me if you feel that I am in any way being close-minded, illogical, tin-eared, or if I have anything stuck in my teeth.

                Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                Are you are Darwinist?
                Err...I don't usually define myself as such. I'm an average person who bases their beliefs on the merit of the arguments and evidence presented to me. I believe in gravity and relativity, but I don't really refer to myself as a Newtonian or Einsteinist. But if your question means "do you currently believe in the scientific argument laid out in the theory of evolution," then yes, I do.
                Female. 17. Thinking hard about Christ.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hehe.

                  Oh this one is CLEVER.

                  Who here really believes that our friend is genuinely seeking a Creationist project?

                  This is one of the better subtle attempts to discredit Creationism that I have seen in a long time.

                  The funniest bit was regarding the practical applications of evolutionary science and asking how we can use creationist science in practical applications,

                  That one REALLY showed your hand.

                  Not being sarcastic at all though, I really do commend your cleverness and it really did give me a chuckle.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    impostor in disguise

                    <<The funniest bit was regarding the practical applications of evolutionary science and asking how we can use creationist science in practical applications. That one REALLY showed your hand.>>

                    Yeap, it looks like that. Because asking how can we convince the Creator to show his stuff in a laboratory (to do another miracle) is tempting God.

                    Rom 1:19-20 states, they have no excuse, just looking at nature is evidence enough to believe in a Creator.

                    DNA is the information needed to create your body, but it is not just your body, it is your body as it changes with time, so it describes your body design as it ages (thousands of designs). How many books are needed to describe that (if it were up to man to do it), including every organ, every hair that turned gray or turned lose and when in time to implement that change, how many books are needed to describe the human design? Because God did it on a one inch long string called DNA.

                    And how many letters are there in DNA? Pile up 1900 Bibles (longer than a basketball court) and count the number of letters (not words, letters) in those 1900 Bibles and you will have an idea of how many letters are in one molecule of DNA. Then figure out the probability of typing all that by chance in just 17 billion years. Let me give you a hint. Figure out the probability of throwing 52 pennies in the air every second and have all the coins landing with "tail-end up" in one of those throws. The universe is not old enough to get a 50% chance of that happening with 52 pennies, not in 17 billion years. And DNA has 6 billion letters. Evolutionists believe by chance those 19 Bibles can type themselves up without a Creator, in just 3 billion years. Their IQ drops below room temperature (because of their attitude) as Jesus previously stated in John 8:43. The fools say, there is no God.

                    There is no excuse.

                    Shalom

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SirTanTee View Post
                      To losthorizon: Okay, I am going to try to address all your points below. You have a lot of (rather angry sounding) questions and information in your post.
                      Not angry my friend just prodding you to cut to the chase and leave out unnecessary preamble with your “investigative” motif – ie - get real and lay aside the fluff as you can see it makes you appear disingenuous.

                      Ookay. What I was basically referring to was the idea that standard deviations within any population produce a range of traits. Some of these traits are desirable, some don't generally matter too much, and others are useful for the members of these populations. Given time (and with the interference of natural events such as disasters, isolation of populations the bottleneck affect), natural selection will occur, making the useful traits of any given population more and more predominant, and eventually causing speciation and divergent evolution within different sectors of the given population.
                      What you appear to be describing is biological evolution – ie - small-scale changes within species and no one on this thread rejects this as science. Your vague and undefined statement - “divergent evolution” will need to be defined and maybe you can give a verifiable example for review.

                      Please explain to me why you see the theory of evolution as metaphysical - the theory itself, by its very nature, does not address the issue of theism or abiogenisis (the beginning of life). It does not attempt to.
                      Let me point out from the get-go – I make the clear distinction between biological evolution (science) and Darwinism (metaphysics) – the former is based on scientific method the latter is based on metaphysical concepts mixed with science all passed of as science.

                      Please allow me to correct your false notion – the Darwinian “creation mythology” does include what you refer to as “abiogenesis” – the non-scientific notion that life originated from non-life all by its lonesome. Please review the words of our Darwinist friend below (James Trefil) – it is self-explanatory. Please also note this scientific truism – the naturalistic processes of evolution cannot account for the origin of the *biological information* needed to account for the diversity of life found on this planet - thus Darwinian lore is just that - metaphysical speculation and not science. Can you account for this biological information through a strictly naturalistic mechanism as required by Darwinian theory?
                      Evolution of life on earth proceeded in two stages: chemical and biological. Life on earth must have developed from inorganic materials- what else was there for it to come from? The first stage in the development of life, therefore, was the production of a reproducing cell from materials at hand on the early earth. This process is called chemical evolution.... Once a living, reproducing system was present, the process of natural selection took over to produce the wide variety of life that exists today. James Trefil's, 1000 Things Everyone Should Know About Science
                      Is this amusing statment a statment of science or a statement of philosophy based on a godless worldview? This is the crux of our disagreement, btw.

                      As I was saying in my earlier post, but I didn't elaborate on, studying evolutionary principles has helped scientists to advance many fields. They are apply knowledge currently to efforts like species conservation, solving molecular puzzles using bioinformatics and how this knowledge can be used to fight cancers and viruses more effectively using proteins like interferons, genetic engineering and germ line therapy.
                      And again I remind you that I understand and agree that evolutionary biology is science and have no problem with your statement above. But please keep in mind that the notion of common ancestry resulting from abiogenesis has nothing to do with the science of evolution but is in fact a naturalistic philosophical worldview that does not include a Creator-God and man is simply the result of a chance process that did not have him in mind.


                      I am going to preface this two warnings: this may get really long, because you asked, and also science is not my best subject (had to fight for that B in biology honors...) and so I'm just going to quote directly and hope I don't mangle anything. There is definitely controversy around the Dinosaur-to-Bird theory, but the current answer to your question is basically that the proposed ancestor of modern birds - theropods - did not have a dead-end lung. It had a flow-through lung that predated the evolution of birds. Here's some recent research on the issue of the respiratory system in modern birds versus dinosaurs:
                      I am going to give you an "A" for effort here my friend – not many Darwinists will take the time to do the research you have done - you are to be commended. And I will also agree that you are not a scientist and you may not realize the complexities of the avian lung and how it differs so completely from any other lung in the animal kingdom. I think Michael Denton (Molecular biologist) gives a good overview as to the near-impossible Darwinian notion that the avian lung morphed from that of a theropod (it can't be done no matter how much "time" Darwin's god is allowed).
                      Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. ~ Michael Denton
                      I would also direct you to the evolutionist and avian expert, Alan Feduccia (University of North Carolina) who sums up the notion of dino-to-bird evolution as having never happened. We can see that evolutionists are not only unable to explain scientifically how a dinosaur can morph into a bird but many do not even think dinos are the “common ancestor” of birds. Darwinism is rampant with such speculations (metaphysical assumptions).
                      "The theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century." ~ Alan Feduccia (New Scientist)
                      I'll try to be original, polite, present logical sound arguments and relevant scientific queries. I started this thread because I want scientifically based (not theologically based) creationist research. Feel free to inform me if you feel that I am in any way being close-minded, illogical, tin-eared, or if I have anything stuck in my teeth.
                      And I appreciate your presentation and all I am asking is that your defense of Darwinism be based on science and not philosophy.

                      Err...I don't usually define myself as such. I'm an average person who bases their beliefs on the merit of the arguments and evidence presented to me. I believe in gravity and relativity, but I don't really refer to myself as a Newtonian or Einsteinist. But if your question means "do you currently believe in the scientific argument laid out in the theory of evolution," then yes, I do.
                      (Trick questions for you). Do you agree or disagree that Darwinism is heavily rooted in metaphysical naturalism that intentionally tries to eliminate a Creator-God? Are you a *creationist* – ie – do you believe God “created in the beginning”? Is the abiogenesis embraced and taught by evolutionism science or philosophy? How does your version of Darwinism differ from the Darwinism of the “fundamentalist artiest”, Richard Dawkins? Please be specific.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Good luck, Sir Tan Tee. I've looked long and hard for the same type of thing for a long time, but all Creationists seem to be able to do is point to the holes and yell "See! it's impossible!"

                        How much of what we know today was declared impossible at some point in history? Once the prevailing thought was that human flight was impossible. Faster than sound travel? Impossible. Science cannot possible move forward if it steers away from the impossible. Otherwise, all it becomes is glorified butterfly collecting.

                        Here is a challenge for creationists: endogenous retroviruses. These viruses are the molecular remnants of past viral infections, that have actually "written" themselves to a random location in the DNA strand. Once written, the DNA of all that host's descendants will carry the same mark. If evolution is true, then as you move down the line, you'd expect that the retroviruses would be shared by every species that eventually evolved from that host. You would also expect that a retrovirus mark would NOT be shared by any living being outside that host's ancestry. Here is an interesting thing: humans and chimps uniquely share 16; identical marks in identical locations. That is entirely expected in evolutionary theory. Note that the random chance that one mark would be shared is essentially 1 in 3,000,000,000. The chance that sixteen marks would be randomly shared? 1 in a number so large that, according to ID, it is essentially zero chance.

                        Obviously, God could have placed these in our DNA. But why? Why in a way that would match so well with chimp DNA? Add this consideration as well: since retroviruses are the remains from viral infections, could they have been pre-created into A&E in the YEC view of a "perfect creation"? I don't think so! So, all of those great odds have been achieved over a period of far less than 6,000 years (since ancient human DNA that has been tested shows the same evidence).

                        At the VERY LEAST, this evidence implies that common descent theory has a very strong basis for further study. Either God used common descent, or God created in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from what common descent would imply. The holes will work themselves out; they will be filled, or the theory falsified.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          @ Crawfish: Thanks for chiming in. I have seen your posts and always thought you presented your arguments very well. I suspect the creationist answer to your question about endogenous retroviruses may be that God just felt like doing it that way.

                          Originally posted by theothersock View Post
                          Hehe.

                          Oh this one is CLEVER.

                          Who here really believes that our friend is genuinely seeking a Creationist project?

                          This is one of the better subtle attempts to discredit Creationism that I have seen in a long time.

                          The funniest bit was regarding the practical applications of evolutionary science and asking how we can use creationist science in practical applications,

                          That one REALLY showed your hand.

                          Not being sarcastic at all though, I really do commend your cleverness and it really did give me a chuckle.
                          Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                          Not angry my friend just prodding you to cut to the chase and leave out unnecessary preamble with your ?investigative? motif ? ie - get real and lay aside the fluff as you can see it makes you appear disingenuous.
                          ARGH. I am not actually on some sort of secret, trickster crusade to try to discredit creationism. I am trying to find more evidence for creationism - that's why I started the thread. Many of the material that I found before on my own was totally unimpressive (like Kent Hovind's ridiculous sermons) and so I wanted open input. *sigh* I did not even start this whole discussion of bird lungs and metaphysics, I would like to point out. And the practical application of evolutionary science is a fact. The reason evolution is becoming well-accepted, taught and more heavily studying is because it successfully funds and supports itself.

                          Originally posted by Servant89 View Post
                          DNA is the information needed to create your body, but it is not just your body, it is your body as it changes with time, so it describes your body design as it ages (thousands of designs). How many books are needed to describe that (if it were up to man to do it), including every organ, every hair that turned gray or turned lose and when in time to implement that change, how many books are needed to describe the human design? Because God did it on a one inch long string called DNA. And how many letters are there in DNA? Pile up 1900 Bibles (longer than a basketball court) and count the number of letters (not words, letters) in those 1900 Bibles and you will have an idea of how many letters are in one molecule of DNA. Then figure out the probability of typing all that by chance in just 17 billion years. Let me give you a hint. Figure out the probability of throwing 52 pennies in the air every second and have all the coins landing with "tail-end up" in one of those throws. The universe is not old enough to get a 50% chance of that happening with 52 pennies, not in 17 billion years. And DNA has 6 billion letters. Evolutionists believe by chance those 19 Bibles can type themselves up without a Creator, in just 3 billion years. Their IQ drops below room temperature (because of their attitude) as Jesus previously stated in John 8:43. The fools say, there is no God.

                          There is no excuse.
                          For the record, I DO believe in God. I DO believe that God created life. I DO believe that God still works in the present day. And I DO believe in evolution. I am not an atheist, which seems to be your impression.
                          As for your main point - there are two things I would like to respond with.
                          A) To record the information recorded within our own DNA, we would actually only need a 2 gigabyte chip. That looks like this:



                          B) It is pointless to calculate the probability of DNA arising by "chance," because the universe is not governed by chance, but by chemistry. If I'm standing on a cliff and I drop a ball, by chance it is infinitely improbable that it will fall downwards in the same direction more than one time. But the direction of the ball is not governed by chance, it is governed by gravity. In the same way, the formation of any structure into a certain state (and there are an infinite amount of states, so any state is just as infinitely improbable as any other) is controlled by the extremely strong electromagnetic force. In fact, in fields like molecular dynamics, the law of gravity is not even included in theoretical research and calculations because it is so weak next to the electromagnetic force (10^39 times weaker) that is is irrelevant in determining molecular dynamics. This is the law that governs DNA - not chance.

                          Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                          Let me point out from the get-go ? I make the clear distinction between biological evolution (science) and Darwinism (metaphysics) ? the former is based on scientific method the latter is based on metaphysical concepts mixed with science all passed of as science.

                          Please allow me to correct your false notion ? the Darwinian ?creation mythology? does include what you refer to as ?abiogenesis? ? the non-scientific notion that life originated from non-life all by its lonesome. Please review the words of our Darwinist friend below (James Trefil) ? it is self-explanatory. Please also note this scientific truism ? the naturalistic processes of evolution cannot account for the origin of the *biological information* needed to account for the diversity of life found on this planet - thus Darwinian lore is just that - metaphysical speculation and not science. Can you account for this biological information through a strictly naturalistic mechanism as required by Darwinian theory?
                          Evolution of life on earth proceeded in two stages: chemical and biological. Life on earth must have developed from inorganic materials- what else was there for it to come from? The first stage in the development of life, therefore, was the production of a reproducing cell from materials at hand on the early earth. This process is called chemical evolution.... Once a living, reproducing system was present, the process of natural selection took over to produce the wide variety of life that exists today. James Trefil's, 1000 Things Everyone Should Know About Science
                          Is this amusing statment a statment of science or a statement of philosophy based on a godless worldview? This is the crux of our disagreement, btw.

                          And again I remind you that I understand and agree that evolutionary biology is science and have no problem with your statement above. But please keep in mind that the notion of common ancestry resulting from abiogenesis has nothing to do with the science of evolution but is in fact a naturalistic philosophical worldview that does not include a Creator-God and man is simply the result of a chance process that did not have him in mind.
                          No, not really. The studies of abiogenesis and evolution do NOT attempt to explain why life evolved in a philosophical sense or to twist history in a desperate attempt to hie God under a rug. Within these two fields there are athiests, agnostics, Christians and people of all faiths. What the fields do attempt to do is look at the empirical evidence, discover patterns, and create a technical explanation to explain the evidence. "God did it" may be a philosophical explanation but it is not a scientific one, therefore scientists do not use it in their works, even if they personally believe it. God and science are not mutually exclusive; science cannot explain God, therefore it does not try to, but it can explain things about God's creations.

                          Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                          I am going to give you an "A" for effort here my friend ? not many Darwinists will take the time to do the research you have done - you are to be commended. And I will also agree that you are not a scientist and you may not realize the complexities of the avian lung and how it differs so completely from any other lung in the animal kingdom. I think Michael Denton (Molecular biologist) gives a good overview as to the near-impossible Darwinian notion that the avian lung morphed from that of a theropod (it can't be done no matter how much "time" Darwin's god is allowed).
                          Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner. ~ Michael Denton
                          I would also direct you to the evolutionist and avian expert, Alan Feduccia (University of North Carolina) who sums up the notion of dino-to-bird evolution as having never happened. We can see that evolutionists are not only unable to explain scientifically how a dinosaur can morph into a bird but many do not even think dinos are the ?common ancestor? of birds. Darwinism is rampant with such speculations (metaphysical assumptions).
                          "The theropod origin of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century." ~ Alan Feduccia (New Scientist)
                          But the point is that recent research on fossils such as Majungatholus atopus shows that it does not differ so completely. The best (very recent) work on the subject I have found is the full paper of Patrick O'Connor, which is available here: http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-ocon...s_2005_FLV.pdf. This sort of paper is what I am looking for from the creationist side! A piece of research with heavy citations and references which as been subjected to public peer review.

                          I have some quick questions about your quotes: Is the Michael Denton quote from his book Theory in Crisis? Just wondering - because not only did that book fail to meet standards of peer review, but it was written more than twenty years ago, so....Also, Alan Feduccia does not support the dinosaurs-to-bird theory, he supports an alternate evolutionary theory in which birds evolved from a more arboreal ancestor. Do you support this theory, or are you just using his quote?

                          Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                          (Trick questions for you). Do you agree or disagree that Darwinism is heavily rooted in metaphysical naturalism that intentionally tries to eliminate a Creator-God? Are you a *creationist* ? ie ? do you believe God ?created in the beginning?? Is the abiogenesis embraced and taught by evolutionism science or philosophy? How does your version of Darwinism differ from the Darwinism of the ?fundamentalist artiest?, Richard Dawkins? Please be specific.
                          Oh no...tricks! *scratches chin* I disagree that the evolutionary theory is rooted in metaphysical naturalism that intentionally tries to eliminate a Creator-God. I believe that God created in the beginning. He even says it himself: "The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul." Hmmm...abiogenesis?

                          How is my "version" different from Richard Dawkins? Well, I believe that God, in his power, guided the development of this world however he saw fit. He did so through the process of evolution. God has created a universe that is infinitely complex, yet it is governed by very consistent rules. It would make sense for him to develop his greatest creation within the very rules he has set for himself instead of - as you put it early - "fairy dust." I believe that Genesis is a true metaphor. It is written as a metaphor so that it is easily accessible and understandable to every man, no matter what his time period or scientific knowledge. Can you imagine if it had read things like, "God make heaven and earth, and gravitational forces, and the local solar system, and dark matter, black holes, asteroid belts, three different of stars as well as planet atmospheres. And God created every living creature that moves, mainly through the processes of allopatric, sympatric, peripatric and parapatric natural selection." No one would have understood any of it! In fact, it would probably cause them to dismiss the whole thing because it sounded ridiculous. God gave us basic understanding, but his world has an abundance of evidence in it that helps up to better understand his great works.
                          Female. 17. Thinking hard about Christ.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by crawfish View Post
                            Good luck, Sir Tan Tee. I've looked long and hard for the same type of thing for a long time, but all Creationists seem to be able to do is point to the holes and yell "See! it's impossible!"
                            What is being asked of you and what you have failed to date to do is provide verifiable evidences that “the impossible” has in fact happened. As has been mentioned to you many times – extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary evidences of the scientific type. If we are to push TE as viable for Christians today shouldn’t we provide science to back it up? You simply hash out the same old circular atheistic rhetoric based on the naturalistic philosophy of Dawkins et al. At least Tan Tee provides good science to evaluate. That’s all that has ever been asked of you.

                            Here is a challenge for creationists: endogenous retroviruses. These viruses are the molecular remnants of past viral infections, that have actually "written" themselves to a random location in the DNA strand.
                            LOL - can’t the creationist come back to you and say ERVs can just as easily be used to support common design as common ancestry and you are once again left at square one? Any good scientist will simply blow you out of the water with your simplistic argument found on your favorite Darwinist website and the viability of TE once again suffers. As a critique – you do not provide enough science to support your TE position.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by losthorizon View Post
                              What is being asked of you and what you have failed to date to do is provide verifiable evidences that “the impossible” has in fact happened. As has been mentioned to you many times – extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary evidences of the scientific type. If we are to push TE as viable for Christians today shouldn’t we provide science to back it up? You simply hash out the same old circular atheistic rhetoric based on the naturalistic philosophy of Dawkins et al. At least Tan Tee provides good science to evaluate. That’s all that has ever been asked of you.

                              What I see above is that you dismissed the argument by Sir Tan Tee by quoting two people who hold an opposing viewpoint. That is hardly science. It's not even good logic. You'd do better to explain why his thesis might be wrong, rather than assuming it must be wrong because two experts disagree with it.

                              You also don't mention that one of your sources (Feduccia) offers an alternate solution to the common descent problem that places birds at a different point in time and place in the tree. The problem with this argument is that common descent theory does NOT depend on reptile-to-avian evolution; it is simply a possibility being explored within the overall theory framework.


                              LOL - can’t the creationist come back to you and say ERVs can just as easily be used to support common design as common ancestry and you are once again left at square one? Any good scientist will simply blow you out of the water with your simplistic argument found on your favorite Darwinist website and the viability of TE once again suffers. As a critique – you do not provide enough science to support your TE position.
                              Sure they can - but the terms they use to support their side are "perhaps", "possibly", "may have" and "God could have simply made things that way". Check out articles in AIG if you don't believe me (ICR doesn't have any articles on the subject). You're talking about rejecting the side that has the actual evidence - we've seen what causes ERV's - and accepting the side with untested possibilities simply because it fits your viewpoint.

                              I would think that any good scientist could blow either of us out of the water, even by taking the opposite side they believe in, because neither one of us is a scientist or has a deep understanding of this stuff. I tend to trust the opinions best of those who are willing to publish their results, methods and test data, and put themselves out there for solid peer review, and who pass that rigorous test. Those who aren't willing to do that are less credible in my book.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X