Do creationists accept biology?

[YoursTrue]

So biology is legit?

It depends which direction it's going in. If I examine a molecule and its interaction under scrutiny, that's legit. But if someone postulates that the molecules came from a possible soupy mass, that's conjecture. And not provable. Or verifiable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends which direction it's going in. If I examine a molecule and its interaction under scrutiny, that's legit. But if someone postulates that the molecules came from a possible soupy mass, that's conjecture. And not provable. Or verifiable.

I see that you do not understand the scientific method and have to rely on strawman arguments. Would you care to fix this problem?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology, Cum Laude. I have worked in a science-related capacity for 25 years.

I am a Creationist.

There's no conflict, I can assure you.

 

[Yerda]

Hello there and welcome.

I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology, Cum Laude. I have worked in a science-related capacity for 25 years.

I am a Creationist.

There's no conflict, I can assure you.

That's very interesting. I When I started the thread I had in mind the type of poster who would argue that evolution doesn't explain the variety of species we see and that humans were made as they are and aren't the product of a long process of evolution. Would that characterise yourself accurately?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Hello there and welcome.

That's very interesting. I When I started the thread I had in mind the type of poster who would argue that evolution doesn't explain the variety of species we see and that humans were made as they are and aren't the product of a long process of evolution. Would that characterise yourself accurately?

Darwinian Evolution is - to put it bluntly - mathematically impossible. From a probability perspective, it's akin to eternally flipping a coin that eternally comes up "heads." To account for this problem, strict evolutionists keep tacking more and more zeros ("billions and billions of years") onto the evolutionary process to hopefully account for the time they think is needed for these changes (mutations) to occur.

So, yes...That would classify my view, although the description you provide of my perspective is somewhat simplistic.

Additionally, Darwinian Evolution cannot account for the irreducible complexity of highly complex organ systems.

 

[Yerda]

Darwinian Evolution is - to put it bluntly - mathematically impossible. From a probability perspective, it's akin to eternally flipping a coin that eternally comes up "heads." To account for this problem, strict evolutionists keep tacking more and more zeros ("billions and billions of years") onto the evolutionary process to hopefully account for the time they think is needed for these changes (mutations) to occur.

So, yes...That would classify my view, although the description you provide of my perspective is somewhat simplistic.

Additionally, Darwinian Evolution cannot account for the irreducible complexity of highly complex organ systems.

Ok. So no evolution for you. We'll leave that aside.

Given that you have a background in biology can I take it as a given that you've studied biochemistry and are acquainted with DNA structure and replication, cell division etc?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwinian Evolution is - to put it bluntly - mathematically impossible. From a probability perspective, it's akin to eternally flipping a coin that eternally comes up "heads." To account for this problem, strict evolutionists keep tacking more and more zeros ("billions and billions of years") onto the evolutionary process to hopefully account for the time they think is needed for these changes (mutations) to occur.

So, yes...That would classify my view, although the description you provide of my perspective is somewhat simplistic.

Additionally, Darwinian Evolution cannot account for the irreducible complexity of highly complex organ systems.

LOL! A person that supposedly graduated cum laude in biology should understand that there are no irreducibly complex organs.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

LOL! A person that supposedly graduated cum laude in biology should understand that there are no irreducibly complex organs.

Interesting...Can you please explain? I really want to hear your attempt at explaining away this fact of nature!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok. So no evolution for you. We'll leave that aside.

Given that you have a background in biology can I take it as a given that you've studied biochemistry and are acquainted with DNA structure and replication, cell division etc?

Claims to have a background in biology. The claim of irreducible complexity is merely an argument from ignorance with all of the original examples being explained for. Irreducible complexity was Michael Behe's argument. His original claims have all been shown not to be irreducibly complex. What he did was to find unanswered in biology at the time and made claims about their possible evolution that were later shown to be wrong.

When someone claims to understand evolution and that they can refute it they usually demonstrate rather rapidly that they do not understand the science and that all they have are old recycle arguments at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting...Can you please explain? I really want to hear your attempt at explaining away this fact of nature!

What "fact of nature"? You made a false claim. There are no organs shown to be irreducibly complex. Where did you get your supposed degree from?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Ok. So no evolution for you. We'll leave that aside.

Given that you have a background in biology can I take it as a given that you've studied biochemistry and are acquainted with DNA structure and replication, cell division etc?

Yes. I am acquainted with all of those things (Mitosis, Meiosis, DNA, RNA, replication, etc.) In fact, it's one of the reasons why I disbelieve evolution.

In my opinion, the assumption that a system as complex as DNA (and replication, etc.) could arrive due to a series of random mutations is simply not believable. DNA is a code. Codes are NOT random; they are designed.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Claims to have a background in biology. The claim of irreducible complexity is merely an argument from ignorance with all of the original examples being explained for. Irreducible complexity was Michael Behe's argument. His original claims have all been shown not to be irreducibly complex. What he did was to find unanswered in biology at the time and made claims about their possible evolution that were later shown to be wrong.

When someone claims to understand evolution and that they can refute it they usually demonstrate rather rapidly that they do not understand the science and that all they have are old recycle arguments at best.

I'm sorry, but you reveal your own ignorance when you attempt to explain away a learned PhD's theory about irreducible complexity simply by saying it doesn't work.

Point-of-fact, none of Behe's claims have been scientifically refuted; this is something that evolutionists repeat, ad nauseum, and hope no one notices.

Again...Please cite where Behe's claims have been PROVEN wrong.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

What "fact of nature"? You made a false claim. There are no organs shown to be irreducibly complex. Where did you get your supposed degree from?

Irreducible complexity is a fact of nature.

It is the proverbial fly in the evolutionist's ointment.

It succinctly explains that complex systems and organelles could not "evolve" if one key part of the evolutionary chain did not yet exist, because the entire organism would not be able to live.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. I am acquainted with all of those things (Mitosis, Meiosis, DNA, RNA, replication, etc.) In fact, it's one of the reasons why I disbelieve evolution.

In my opinion, the assumption that a system as complex as DNA (and replication, etc.) could arrive due to a series of random mutations is simply not believable. DNA is a code. Codes are NOT random; they are designed.

You may be acquainted with them. At least you can list the terminology. I sincerely doubt that you can find any flaw in the theory of evolution.

And no, at least in the sense that you are using it DNA is not "code". You do realize that words have more than one meaning quite often. DNA can be called a code but it is not a code in the same sense of a man made one.

So far we have only seen refuted claims and equivocation fallacies. For someone that supposedly understands biology I was hoping for so much more.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

What "fact of nature"? You made a false claim. There are no organs shown to be irreducibly complex. Where did you get your supposed degree from?

I'm really excited to hear your explanation for how the blood-clotting cascade system "evolved"!

I even bought popcorn!

Have at it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, but you reveal your own ignorance when you attempt to explain away a learned PhD's theory about irreducible complexity simply by saying it doesn't work.

Point-of-fact, none of Behe's claims have been scientifically refuted; this is something that evolutionists repeat, ad nauseum, and hope no one notices.

Again...Please cite where Behe's claims have been PROVEN wrong.

I didn't "explain it away". I stated the fact that it was refuted. And Behe's claim about the flagellum was originally refuted by a simple mousetrap.

I doubt if you even understand his argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irreducible complexity is a fact of nature.

It is the proverbial fly in the evolutionist's ointment.

It succinctly explains that complex systems and organelles could not "evolve" if one key part of the evolutionary chain did not yet exist, because the entire organism would not be able to live.

Please, if you are not going to be serious you should not even try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm really excited to hear your explanation for how the blood-clotting cascade system "evolved"!

I even bought popcorn!

Have at it!

Well I am not, since that is far from my area of expertise. But that is well understood. In fact you are now sounding a bit like a poe since that was the topic that caused Behe to slink away from the Dover trial in shame. It was demonstrated there that he had no clue about the work done in that field.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

You may be acquainted with them. At least you can list the terminology. I sincerely doubt that you can find any flaw in the theory of evolution.

And no, at least in the sense that you are using it DNA is not "code". You do realize that words have more than one meaning quite often. DNA can be called a code but it is not a code in the same sense of a man made one.

So far we have only seen refuted claims and equivocation fallacies. For someone that supposedly understands biology I was hoping for so much more.

You make so many obvious and flawed assumptions, i can tell that you're not really well-versed in biology.

1. Evolution is NOT a theory. It does NOT qualify as a theory. It's an unproven hypothesis. As renowned Evolutionary Biologist Lynne Margulis once remarked "The problem with evolution is that it's never been observed to occur."

2. DNA is most certainly a code. It's a complex, highly organized system that defies the organizing principles of the universe - entropy, or disorder. But it developed all by itself??? How cute!!!

3. If you're hoping to be embarrassed more, well...You will be.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Please, if you are not going to be serious you should not even try.

You offer NOTHING but contrarian opinions.

Let's talk in the world of facts.