Do creationists accept biology?

[Subduction Zone]

Do you understand the critical role
of equivocation in the code argument? ?

Yes.

 

[Audie]

Yes.

You'd pull their last rotten tooth?

Meanie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'd pull their last rotten tooth?

Meanie.

Don't worry, they are like sharks in that regard. They simply grow a new one and pretend that the old one was never pulled. It has been at least 15 years since they have had a new argument, the "soft tissue" argument. Ironically the first soft tissue were found by a Christian paleontologist that greatly resented the claims of creationists.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

My link clearly showed you that it the basic ToE is not just a hypothesis if you actually had bothered to read it. I also linked you to a source that shows studies on how species have evolved under observation that also includes links to those studies.

So, it's obvious you'd rather use your religious beliefs as a set of blinders rather than enlightenment. Jesus said we would know the Truth, but what you are doing is to virtually ignore some the Truth.

I grew up in a church that taught that evolution was "evilution", but I knew that couldn't be right even back in high school because of all the museums I'd visited with my parents that showed otherwise. I went on to college, eventually getting a graduate degree in anthropology, and then I taught it for 30 years. I left my church in my mid-20's because of it's anti-science bent, and I now belong to a church that actually accepts science, including the ToE, as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

Again, evolution is just plain old common sense, thus one needs not have a graduate degree to appreciate its reality as part of God's Truth.

You make a lot of faulty assumptions, both about me, and what you've observed/been taught.

First of all, your comment about my using "religious beliefs as a set of blinders rather than enlightenment" is kind of funny, on many levels. I have a BScience in Biology, Cum Laude, from a major northeastern university with a very well-respected STEM department(s).

So, point-of-fact, I'm using my education to understand that evolution is a farce. It's not scientific. It does NOT pass the scientific smell-test that determines how, exactly, something passes from conjecture to science. All of the time-tested scientific processes used to determine facts are basically tossed out the proverbial window with evolution. Sorry...But that's absolutely true.

You visited a lot of museums as a kid? Awesome! So did I.

But so what? You likely saw a lot of bones, a lot of fossils, and (unfortunately) read a lot of conjecture masquerading as fact.

Claiming that God "did" evolution is a cop-out for a Christian. If He exists (and He does) why would you put breaks on His power an authority? Why would you assume that He needed a long, drawn-out evolutionary process to create life on earth? That's contradictory.

But at least you believe in God, so I guess there's that?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

...while evolution was a hypothesis
at one time, say, 150 years ago, it has since
passed every test, remained consistent with
every relevant datum point, and long long
since graduated to the status of theory....

Of course you would care to offer
datum point or two such as disprove the
theory, we would be ever so interested.

WHEN, exactly, did evolution pass into realm of "theory"?

ANSWER: Never. It does NOT qualify as a theory. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. Evolution, while loudly trumpeted, is NOT "well substantiated." In fact, it's never been observed to occur.

It's a hypothesis, based on limited evidence. The existence of bones, fossils, etc., does NOT prove evolution. It does NOT account for the Cambrian Explosion.

Of course you would care to offer a datum point or two such as to prove the hypothesis, we would be ever so interested!

 

[Jacques de Molay]

BTW, "evolution" stands to even the most basic common sense, namely that all material objects appear ton change over time, and genes and life forms are material objects.

Religion is mean to be enlightening, but it's not at all enlightening if it obscures basic facts that are testable:

Speciation - Wikipedia [one can use the links there to see some of the specific examples]

Your assumptions about evolution are absolutely false.

It's amazing how people allow pop-culture to inform their scientific opinions...

 

[Audie]

WHEN, exactly, did evolution pass into realm of "theory"?

ANSWER: Never. It does NOT qualify as a theory. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. Evolution, while loudly trumpeted, is NOT "well substantiated." In fact, it's never been observed to occur.

It's a hypothesis, based on limited evidence. The existence of bones, fossils, etc., does NOT prove evolution. It does NOT account for the Cambrian Explosion.

Of course you would care to offer a datum point or two such as to prove the hypothesis, we would be ever so interested!

Whatever, guy.

 

[metis]

I have a BScience in Biology, Cum Laude, from a major northeastern university with a very well-respected STEM department(s).

That a $5 can get you a coffee at Starbucks-- but don't forget to leave a tip.

So, point-of-fact, I'm using my education to understand that evolution is a farce.

No, you're using your religious belief as a set of blinders to the reality that all material forms change over time and genes and life forms are material. As long as you just blindly believe in your denomination's line, you will never see the Truth on this.

Claiming that God "did" evolution is a cop-out for a Christian.

Really? Most Christian theologians don't think so-- but then what would they know, right?

If He exists (and He does) why would you put breaks on His power an authority?

I can't help but notice that you believe in a deity you cannot see or provide objectively-derived evidence for but refuse to believe in the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, plus you ignore even the most basic common sense dealing with change.

Why would you assume that He needed a long, drawn-out evolutionary process to create life on earth? That's contradictory.

Why could He not do that? How long did humans exist on Earth before Jesus, for example? IOW, why did he wait until only about 2000 years ago.

This whole process from pre-Judaism to Judaism to Jesus' time was quite long, so this model more fits mine than yours.

 

[metis]

Your assumptions about evolution are absolutely false.

It's amazing how people allow pop-culture to inform their scientific opinions...

If the above wasn't so pathetically blind it would be funny.

I left my fundamentalist Protestant church because of their anti-science agenda back in the late 1960's, and I did it because of massive irrefutable evidence for the ToE that includes observations posted in my link on "speciation" in a previous post that showed actual examples plus links to when and where these were observed. You, otoh, have gone in the opposite direction by adopting a Dark Age mentality whereas objective evidence doesn't matter-- only blind belief does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have a BScience in Biology, Cum Laude, from a major northeastern university with a very well-respected STEM department(s).

Considering the very elementary errors and falsehoods you have stated about science in general and evolution in particular, I'm calling BS on that one.

So, point-of-fact, I'm using my education to understand that evolution is a farce. It's not scientific. It does NOT pass the scientific smell-test that determines how, exactly, something passes from conjecture to science. All of the time-tested scientific processes used to determine facts are basically tossed out the proverbial window with evolution. Sorry...But that's absolutely true.

See? With stuff like this.... There's no way you graduated "cum laude" in a university biology course if you are this ignorant.

You visited a lot of museums as a kid? Awesome! So did I.

But so what? You likely saw a lot of bones, a lot of fossils, and (unfortunately) read a lot of conjecture masquerading as fact.

If you graduated in biology, as you claim, you should know that all fossils could disappear of the face of the earth - along with all the knowledge we gained from studying them, and still the evolutionary case would be one of the best established and best supported ideas in all of science based on the genetic record alone.

But likely you aren't aware of this, because you didn't actually graduate cum laude in biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

WHEN, exactly, did evolution pass into realm of "theory"?

+150 years ago.

ANSWER: Never. It does NOT qualify as a theory. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

Which evolution does.

In fact, it's never been observed to occur.

Google "observed speciation".

It's a hypothesis, based on limited evidence. The existence of bones, fossils, etc., does NOT prove evolution

DNA - ever heard of it?

It does NOT account for the Cambrian Explosion.

Except that it does.

Of course you would care to offer a datum point or two such as to prove the hypothesis, we would be ever so interested!

Shared ERV's.

Just one of literally millions of examples.

 

[Audie]

Considering the very elementary errors and falsehoods you have stated about science in general and evolution in particular, I'm calling BS on that one.



See? With stuff like this.... There's no way you graduated "cum laude" in a university biology course if you are this ignorant.



If you graduated in biology, as you claim, you should know that all fossils could disappear of the face of the earth - along with all the knowledge we gained from studying them, and still the evolutionary case would be one of the best established and best supported ideas in all of science based on the genetic record alone.

But likely you aren't aware of this, because you didn't actually graduate cum laude in biology.

Seriously. "Masquerading as fact".

Honour such with no further attention.