On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist.

Others obviously agree with that. I do not. Natural laws are set in place as far as I am concerned not by magic, but by God. Take care.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The latter is why I'm becoming less and less interested in joining these discussions and debates. Answering the same questions over and over only to have my responses ignored and seeing the same questions raised again as if never answered.

You and I have discussed this before. There is no need for you to answer any questions if you prefer not to. I didn't. I just directed him to answers.

My other purpose was to call out a creationist asking for evidence that I know he isn't interested in and won't devote any time in reviewing. I would recommend that since it frustrates you to stop answering the creationists as if they were sincere about learning. Isn't that all we ever see? You don't need to be Charlie Brown to their Lucy:

Where is the morality in taking on such tactics? Where are the Christian ethics being employed by those claiming Christianity, but only seeming to provide a lip service to it, when it is really their "version" that is being served by tactics that are supposed to be disowned by Christianity?

You know the answer to that:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

He wants to represent that he cares about reason and evidence. Lying is a way of life for many of these people. Look at the three Supreme Court justices Trump nominated. They all lied about their intentions, and undoubtedly with no pangs of guilt.

I'm glad you're different. Your values seem to be the same as mine, a situation I've commented on before. I call you and the other Christians who esteem honesty, critical thought, and scholarship theistic humanists, since your formulation seems to be the same as this atheistic humanist: the application of reason to empathy and evidence to determine what is true, good, and right. Not surprisingly, anybody who does that comes to more or less the same answers to those questions. Unlike many of your fellow believers, you seem to respect democracy, church-state separation, and education while avoiding the bigotries taught and the idea that how other law-abiding people live, who they love, and how they configure their families is your business.

Others obviously agree with that. I do not.

That was in response to, "God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist."

You say that you disagree, but you offer no counterargument. How did you rule out that Norm did it?

Natural laws are set in place as far as I am concerned not by magic, but by God

That IS magic.

Yes the first life form on earth was formed from the dust of the ground.

Sort of. We don't normally refer to those chemicals as dust, but we can allow a little poetry into the discussion.

But it was lacking one thing. The breath of life which had to be supplied from a living life form.

The first life didn't breathe.

And life that does breathe does so without anybody blowing breath into it.

I guess that I was correct about you having no interest in educating yourself. You didn't even mention all of that material I posted for you, which is why I don't try to teach creationists even when they say that they want to learn. They really don't, which was the point I was actually trying to make, and why I didn't try to explain anything to you more scientific than comments like this one. Life is made of chemistry, not dust, and breathing animals do so spontaneously.

 

[walt]

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University was a evolutionist and his fellow scientists were also evolutionist's, I am watching videos on YouTube about, what many scientists have newly discovered and their research findings.

I will take a look at each persons information. Thank you so much to everyone for your words and patience. Michael Behe and his fellow Scientists have many studies they are working on. I am trying not to leave any stones UN-TURNED.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University was a evolutionist and his fellow scientists were also evolutionist's, I am watching videos on YouTube about, what many scientists have newly discovered and their research findings.

I will take a look at each persons information. Thank you so much to everyone for your words and patience. Michael Behe and his fellow Scientists have many studies they are working on. I am trying not to leave any stones UN-TURNED.

Behe still accepts the theory of evolution, but only to a point. His ideas from that point have been widely refuted and long ago. These are old stones and nothing new. He has become a scientific non-entity at his own hands.

 

[walt]

Behe still accepts the theory of evolution, but only to a point. His ideas from that point have been widely refuted and long ago. These are old stones and nothing new. He has become a scientific non-entity at his own hands.

I agree with you completely, It's all old news if you ask me, and scientists will debate on this subject for many years to come. Thanks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with you completely, It's all old news if you ask me, and scientists will debate on this subject for many years to come.

The debate relating to Behe seems to have ended in science and in the courts. A blind end. His presence now seems to be in trying to maintain any semblance of relevance he can cling to.

 

[walt]

The debate relating to Behe seems to have ended in science and in the courts. A blind end. His presence now seems to be in trying to maintain any semblance of relevance he can cling to.

Even though, I like to look at the information coming from both sides of the argument, and after I have looked at all the evidence from both sides, then I decide.

I believe in God's word the Bible, the words in the Bible are very important to me and always will be.

 

[Pogo]

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Lehigh University was a evolutionist and his fellow scientists were also evolutionist's, I am watching videos on YouTube about, what many scientists have newly discovered and their research findings.

I will take a look at each persons information. Thank you so much to everyone for your words and patience. Michael Behe and his fellow Scientists have many studies they are working on. I am trying not to leave any stones UN-TURNED.

I am unaware of any recent research on Behe's Irreducible complexity since his 2004 paper which with proper analysis demonstrated that IC was not impossible in spite of hypothetical claims, In fact I am unaware of any research papers (not videos) using any of the ideas of the Discovery institute in academic literature. Their own journal folded as did their "laboratory".
I can still link you to this which is a commentary of Behe's paper.

BS Model Gets "Lynched"​

https://newtonsbinomium.blogspot.com/2005/08/bs-model-gets-lynched.html
Protein Science has released their latest issue. It features Michael Lynch's answer to Behe & Snoke's (BS) 2004 paper, along with a response from BS themselves, and an editorial explaining what happened behind the scenes. Lynch's abstract is fairly clear:

A recent paper in this journal has challenged the idea that complex adaptive features of proteins can be explained by known molecular, genetic, and evolutionary mechanisms. It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic. Numerous simple pathways exist by which adaptive multiresidue functions can evolve on time scales of a million years (or much less) in populations of only moderate size. Thus, the classical evolutionary trajectory of descent with modification is adequate to explain the diversification of protein functions.

If you have any recent research to present, I would be interested but not videos.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even though, I like to look at the information coming from both sides of the argument, and after I have looked at all the evidence from both sides, then I decide.

I believe in God's word the Bible, the words in the Bible are very important to me and always will be.

The unfortunate part of it is that there is only evidence from one side in regards to science. Everything that amounts to the creationist claim is belief and interpretation of what is believed.

To reject science one needs evidence that is relevant to the science in question. In over 30 years in this discussion what I have seen as evidence against the science then is the same evidence I see today. That is to say, no evidence. Rejection remains ideological.

 

[Pogo]

Even though, I like to look at the information coming from both sides of the argument, and after I have looked at all the evidence from both sides, then I decide.

I believe in God's word the Bible, the words in the Bible are very important to me and always will be.

Be careful of God of the gaps arguments where persons are finding a place for god in that which is not known. That is basically what happened to Irreducible complexity when more mechanisms for evolution were brought into the discussion.

 

[Pogo]

I agree with you completely, It's all old news if you ask me, and scientists will debate on this subject for many years to come. Thanks.

It is old news, and has ceased to be debated in scientific circles though you can still find videos propounding it in creationist circles.

 

[walt]

The unfortunate part of it is that there is only evidence from one side in regards to science. Everything that amounts to the creationist claim is belief and interpretation of what is believed.

To reject science one needs evidence that is relevant to the science in question. In over 30 years in this discussion what I have seen as evidence against the science then is the same evidence I see today. That is to say, no evidence. Rejection remains ideological.

I look at both sides, and will continue to do so.

 

[Astrophile]

I can't say if the present thousands of species of fruit flies evolved (descended) from a common ancestor. That no longer exists. All I know now is that evidently fruit flies remain as fruit flies and despite the many varieties (I'll call them that) of fruit flies, they are nevertheless still fruit flies.

I think that you see what I am driving at, and also I see what you are driving at. If you accept that the 4000 species (or varieties) of fruit flies descended (or evolved) from a common ancestral species without becoming anything but fruit flies, you have no reason to deny that the 6400 extant species of mammals evolved from a common ancestral species without becoming anything but mammals.

Puleeze explain, if you will, the proof or evidence you can show for sure that fruit flies do not remain as fruit flies. Thank you. Or -- finches do not remain as finches -- or -- humans do not remain as humans. Thank you so much. If you have no proof, forget it then. Remember though I said, proof or evidence. The two in relation to the perception of the theory of evolution are important. Obviously evidence considered by those trying to figure how artifacts in the way of fossils fit into the theory is not proof of the theory.

I have already tried to explain this. Fruit flies do remain as fruit flies (Drosophilidae); they may evolve into different species of fruit flies, but they r remain fruit flies (Drosophilidae). In the same way dinosaurs may have acquired flight feathers and learnt to fly, but they remain dinosaurs. In the same way, australopithecines

Science starts with an assumption and works it's way from there.

My question if life started to exist on earth as you posit where did the carbon and nitrogen come from?

Enjoy,

​

Carbon and oxygen were produced by fusion of helium nuclei in giant and supergiant stars. Nitrogen was produced by the CNO cycle (see CNO cycle - Wikipedia ) in medium-mass and high-mass main-sequence stars.

 

[walt]

It takes a lot of time to look at all the information from both sides, but I will try my very best. Thanks to everyone.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even though, I like to look at the information coming from both sides of the argument, and after I have looked at all the evidence from both sides, then I decide.

I believe in God's word the Bible, the words in the Bible are very important to me and always will be.

The Bible is a theological book and not a science book. One should be careful, since history has shown us that one can twist the words to fit a desired outcome that often does not fit the theology nor, as often, do the attempts to do so make sense to rational examination.

I believe in God and accept science as the means that God provided to learn about the world around us. For some people claiming to be Christian, that is an anathema that must be thwarted with all the passive aggression and seemingly questionable tactics that they can muster. I have trouble reconciling those actions with the claims of superior spirituality and love that are so often attached.

 

[walt]

The Bible is a theological book and not a science book. One should be careful, since history has shown us that one can twist the words to fit a desired outcome that often does not fit the theology nor, as often, do the attempts to do so make sense to rational examination.

I believe in God and accept science as the means that God provided to learn about the world around us. For some people claiming to be Christian, that is an anathema that must be thwarted with all the passive aggression and seemingly questionable tactics that they can muster. I have trouble reconciling those actions with the claims of superior spirituality and love that are so often attached.

I will keep all your words in mind, all of them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I look at both sides, and will continue to do so.

I am hopeful for you and would really like to see a creationist truly do that. But so far, my hopes have been routinely dashed regarding the looking, seeing and understanding of the science side of this debate by those that arrived already in opposition to it. I find it all boils down to rejection based on ideology and not on evidence or understanding.

 

[walt]

I am hopeful for you and would really like to see a creationist truly do that. But so far, my hopes have been routinely dashed regarding the looking, seeing and understanding of the science side of this debate by those that arrived already in opposition to it. I find it all boils down to rejection based on ideology and not on evidence or understanding.

Jesus quoted the words in Genesis, I believe when one Bible writer backs up another Bible writers words in Genesis, that gives us some kind of confirmation, don't you feel it does?

Is there a specific verses in the Bible you feel I should not take seriously?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Jesus quoted the words in Genesis, I believe when one Bible writer backs up another Bible writers words in Genesis, that gives us some kind of confirmation, don't you feel it does?

Is there a specific verses in the Bible you feel I should not take seriously?

I believe you should take the science seriously. And not interpreting the Bible literally cannot be categorized as not taking it seriously.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Jesus quoted the words in Genesis, I believe when one Bible writer backs up another Bible writers words in Genesis, that gives us some kind of confirmation, don't you feel it does?

Is there a specific verses in the Bible you feel I should not take seriously?

Would Jesus been unaware of Genesis and uneducated on that book? If I quote Shakespeare does that mean that what Shakespeare wrote is now fact? That is the logic you are employing here.

Where does Jesus quote Genesis that is demonstrable evidence that science has it wrong?