Do creationists accept biology?

[Polymath257]

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

I even bought popcorn!

Have at it!

You might look at this:

The Evolution of Vertebrate Blood clotting

Hint: it helps to look at the different blood clotting cascades that actually exist in animals today.

 

[Polymath257]

A meaningless reply.

Don't worry, I'll understand whatever math you care to dish out.

Here's my bet: you falsely assume independence of steps that are known NOT to be independent.

 

[gnostic]

Ask anyone if killing babies is done with scientific equipment.

Wow, you are going to stick with that?

Did god ever kill babies or order them to be kill?

Try Genesis 7 & 8. If the (global) Flood was true, then god killed all the children including babies that weren’t in the Ark.

If you want to know when god ordered babies to be kill, then read 1 Samuel 15:3, when the prophet Samuel ordered Saul to have Amalekites to be killed, including women, children and “infants”.

According to here, prophets were spokespeople of God, hence if this story is true, then god was ultimate authority of having babies killed. How is God (in 1 Samuel 15) any better than Herod in Matthew 2?

 

[Suave]

I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?

Evolution is proven to be a correct theory of biology.

 

[Yerda]

Evolution is proven to be a correct theory of biology.

Yes, it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What was your job?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Could you elaborate on this analogy?

How, exactly, is evolution "impossible" in your view.
When you say "to hopefully account for the time they think is needed for these changes (mutations) to occur", are you talking about certain specific mutations or mutations in general?

Please explain. Inquiring minds want to know.

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

Are you aware that IC was already a PRATT in the week following the day that piece of junk was unleashed upon the world?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Claims a degree in biology.
Doesn't know that "DNA is a code" is a metaphor / analogy.

Priceless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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."

Got a link for that quote mine?
And evolution is most certainly a theory.
Also, no hypothesis, or theory for that matter, is ever considered "proven". As a science degree holder, I'ld expect you to not make such rookie mistakes.

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!!!

LOL!!!! The thermodynamics argument? For realz?
Ever noticed that giant ball of nuclear infurnus up in the sky? It feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.

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

The only embarrassment here so far, is the stuff you write down.

 

[Audie]

Evolution is proven to be a correct theory of biology.

Nonsense

 

[Audie]

Got a link for that quote mine?
And evolution is most certainly a theory.
Also, no hypothesis, or theory for that matter, is ever considered "proven". As a science degree holder, I'ld expect you to not make such rookie mistakes.




LOL!!!! The thermodynamics argument? For realz?
Ever noticed that giant ball of nuclear infurnus up in the sky? It feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.



The only embarrassment here so far, is the stuff you write down.

Quote mine pratts plus sparky braggadocio
makes for a dull thread.

I wish a capable creationust with a modicum
of education would show up.

 

[Audie]

Claims a degree in biology.
Doesn't know that "DNA is a code" is a metaphor / analogy.

Priceless.

Hey, I'm a astronaut plus second in libe for the
throne of Northway. Queen Audie!
You will soon see the end of KING OSCAR
sardines!

As long as I don't show off my command of
space-talk in Norwegian, who is to doubt?

 

[Audie]

Yes, it is.

Nope, it isn't proven

 

[Yerda]

Nope, it isn't proven

Proven is the wrong word, granted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claims a degree in biology.
Doesn't know that "DNA is a code" is a metaphor / analogy.

Priceless.

I am so sorry that I busted this new poster so quickly. Well, I can't take credit for it. He did most of the work himself.

And that was a "Cum laude" degree. Let's not forget it.

 

[Audie]

Proven is the wrong word, granted.

Some things call for precision.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, it isn't proven

It depends on which definition of "proven" that one uses. Nothing in the sciences is ever "proven". But if one goes by the much lower "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as one sees in criminal lawsuits it has been "proven" by that standard.

But since I am a stickler for scientific evidence for a scientific debate I should be consistent and say that nothing in the sciences is proven.

 

[Suave]

Nonsense

Evolution is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and biology..

 

[Audie]

It depends on which definition of "proven" that one uses. Nothing in the sciences is ever "proven". But if one goes by the much lower "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as one sees in criminal lawsuits it has been "proven" by that standard.

But since I am a stickler for scientific evidence for a scientific debate I should be consistent and say that nothing in the sciences is proven.

Depending on what the meaning of "is" is,is it?.

 

[Yerda]

Claims a degree in biology.
Doesn't know that "DNA is a code" is a metaphor / analogy.

Priceless.

Hmm. I've always taken the genetic code to be a quite literal code. The DNA chain contains a set of symbols that are transcribed into RNA chains and then translated into chains of amino acids.