Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[gnostic]

and I have said so for years....repeatedly.....

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

no evidence

all you CAN do is think about it

but is sooooooooooooooo easy

Someone had to be First

substance does not move without something to move it

substance did not beget God

Spirit first

Yeah...your blah,blah, blah garbage that you keep repeating, whenever you can't provide a source or evidence. Your silly catchphrases is just your attempt of evasions.

You are just too prideful to say, "I don't know" or "I am wrong", so you always hide behind this "spirit first" crap, when you have no answer.

If you have no answer then why pretend that you have one?

 

[Parsimony]

The only way evolution works is by not allowing the God theory.

That is not even remotely true. There are many theists that accept evolution. Evolution does not require an assumption about God's existence one way or another.

 

[james bond]

I all ready did, you just had to click the link that would have taken you to:

DNA and Mutations :

A case study of the effects of mutation: Sickle cell anemia

Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease with severe symptoms, including pain and anemia. The disease is caused by a mutated version of the gene that helps make hemoglobin — a protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. People with two copies of the sickle cell gene have the disease. People who carry only one copy of the sickle cell gene do not have the disease, but may pass the gene on to their children.

The mutations that cause sickle cell anemia have been extensively studied and demonstrate how the effects of mutations can be traced from the DNA level up to the level of the whole organism. Consider someone carrying only one copy of the gene. She does not have the disease, but the gene that she carries still affects her, her cells, and her proteins:

1. There are effects at the DNA level:

2. There are effects at the protein level

3. Normal hemoglobin (Left) and hemoglobin in sickled red blood cells (Riht) look different; the mutation in the DNA slightly changes the shape of the hemoglobin molecule, allowing it to clump together.

1. 
   
   
   
   
   Normal red blood cells (L) and sickle cells (R)

4. There are effects at the cellular level: When red blood cells carrying mutant hemoglobin are deprived of oxygen, they become "sickle-shaped" instead of the usual round shape (see picture). This shape can sometimes interrupt blood flow.

5. There are negative effects at the whole organism level: Under conditions such as high elevation and intense exercise, a carrier of the sickle cell allele may occasionally show symptoms such as pain and fatigue.

6. There are positive effects at the whole organism level: Carriers of the sickle cell allele are resistant to malaria, because the parasites that cause this disease are killed inside sickle-shaped blood cells.

This is a chain of causation. What happens at the DNA level propagates up to the level of the complete organism. This example illustrates how a single mutation can have a large effect, in this case, both a positive and a negative one. But in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations, each having a small effect. Whether the mutations are large or small, however, the same chain of causation applies: changes at the DNA level propagate up to the phenotype.

Hokey dokey?

First of all there is no such thing as a "creation scientist." The term is an oxymoron. Nothing anyone who styles themselves such should be taken seriously. The huff puff is hardly a professional journal. The author John Robbins is hardly an authority. I grew up in Santa Cruz, the last paragraph of Robbin's bio says it all: "John has been married for 44 years. He and his wife Deo live with their son Ocean and his wife Michele, and their grandsons River and Bodhi, in a solar powered home outside Santa Cruz, California. "
No, there are not "many." There are a few and most of them are commenting outside of their field of expertise and experience.
We have more than enough evidence to make the case and have done so, even if you discount every single fossil.

1. Nokey dokey. What it means is that genetic information is lost with sickle cell anemia, amiright? That isn't a positive at all. People can die early from sickle cell anemia. There probably isn't a situation where one gains genetic information. That would be something. I'll keep an open mind about it, but my thinking is only God can do that. Another example of this would be the hypermobility mutation or being double-jointed. Swimmer Michael Phelps became famous because of winning the gold medals in his sport. He states his double-jointedness helped, but he probably will have disease and health issues to cope with. Would you make a Michael Phelps kind of deal if you could, Sapiens? Even if you did, there is no guarantee that you'll achieve the success he did.

2. This is more of what atheist scientists try to do in order to palm off their so-called "positive" mutations to an unsuspecting public. They have done this with GMO (in which they'll get rich by their patents) and processed foods. Just now, I was reading how processed foods could cause infertility. The atheist motto of "Better Living through Chemicals" should be changed to "Better Suffering through Chemicals."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-fast-food/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

3. So, people will continue to go hungry even with GMO-foods. That myth was exposed. Now, the other myths and misdirections of the atheist mutations are being exposed with their GMO science. I doubt we have seen the last of this as the atheist scientists foist their GMO on a misinformed public who think they understand science and evolution. The smarter people who believe in creation and creation scientists should fare better in the long-run.

 

[james bond]

That is not even remotely true. There are many theists that accept evolution. Evolution does not require an assumption about God's existence one way or another.

Your first sentence is wrong. Some theists accept evolution, but they have let themselves be misguided and misdirected from the Bible. If the God Theory is allowed in, and creation scientists are allowed to speak about creation, then it would be the end of evolution as people will figure it out for themselves. That's the only reason why science won't accept creation now. It was different before the 1800s. Christianity and science ruled. It really does appear that atheism led to uniformitarianism and Darwinism.

 

[Parsimony]

Your first sentence is wrong.

Given that evolution does not hinge on God's existence or non-existence, then no, it is not wrong.

Some theists accept evolution, but they have let themselves be misguided and misdirected from the Bible.

I said "theists", which would include more than just Christians. It would include deists, Muslims and Hindus who believe in a god but not the Bible. Belief in God is not dependent on belief in the Bible and especially not dependent on belief in a literal reading of the Bible.

If the God Theory is allowed in, and creation scientists are allowed to speak about creation, then it would be the end of evolution as people will figure it out for themselves.

Creation scientists of one stripe or another have spoken for hundreds of years and they are still speaking about creation all the time in churches, on the Internet and in select schools. Yet evolution is still accepted by the majority of scientists, be they theists or not.

That's the only reason why science won't accept creation now. It was different before the 1800s. Christianity and science ruled.

Depends on how you define "creation". If you mean "everything was made in six days", then no, science wouldn't accept that even if evolution was somehow proven false. Radiometric dating shows such not to be the case.

It really does appear that atheism led to uniformitarianism and Darwinism.

Darwin believed in God when he formulated the theory of evolution, so no.

1. Nokey dokey. What it means is that genetic information is lost with sickle cell anemia, amiright?

No, the amount of genetic information is equal because it is a single nucleotide polymorphism. The length of the DNA and transcribed amino acids is the same in the mutant as it is in the normal type. In other cases, such as gene duplication and subsequent mutations within the duplicated gene, the length of DNA is increased. The original information is retained in the original copy of the gene and new information is added from the mutations in the copied gene. Just such a thing happened with citrate-metabolizing E.coli strains.

That isn't a positive at all.

"Positive" mutations enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. A mutation doesn't have to add information and can even remove information from a genome yet still have a positive effect on survival. In places where malaria is widespread, the sickle-cell mutation aids in survival and reproduction because it frustrates the life cycle of the malaria parasite. In those individuals with only one copy of the gene, they have little to no negative effects from the mutation but still have the malaria resistance. It is a textbook example of a beneficial mutation.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I don't believe there is any verifiable evidence for Creationism because I don't believe that's how the universe came about. I believe that God used natural processes such as the Big Bang and Evolution to create the universe and life as we know it.

 

[Sapiens]

1. Nokey dokey. What it means is that genetic information is lost with sickle cell anemia, amiright?

No, you are wrong.

That isn't a positive at all. People can die early from sickle cell anemia. There probably isn't a situation where one gains genetic information. That would be something. I'll keep an open mind about it, but my thinking is only God can do that.

No, you are actually gaining information and able to survive in a malaria environment. A couple who each have trait have, for example, four children. On average, one will be "normal" and will die of malaria, one will have sickle cell anemia and will die of that, but ... two will have trait and will survive to have children of their own.

Another example of this would be the hypermobility mutation or being double-jointed. Swimmer Michael Phelps became famous because of winning the gold medals in his sport. He states his double-jointedness helped, but he probably will have disease and health issues to cope with. Would you make a Michael Phelps kind of deal if you could, Sapiens? Even if you did, there is no guarantee that you'll achieve the success he did.

Clearly hypermobility does not aid survival to reproduction, if it did it would be the norm.

2. This is more of what atheist scientists try to do in order to palm off their so-called "positive" mutations to an unsuspecting public. They have done this with GMO (in which they'll get rich by their patents) and processed foods. Just now, I was reading how processed foods could cause infertility. The atheist motto of "Better Living through Chemicals" should be changed to "Better Suffering through Chemicals."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-fast-food/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

That article is about the dangers of problems with "fast food." You need some coursework in the chemistry and physiology of diet and nutrition. GMO is not the issue, per se, but often goes hand in hand with "bad" food.
3. So, people will continue to go hungry even with GMO-foods. That myth was exposed. Now, the other myths and misdirections of the atheist mutations are being exposed with their GMO science. I doubt we have seen the last of this as the atheist scientists foist their GMO on a misinformed public who think they understand science and evolution. The smarter people who believe in creation and creation scientists should fare better in the long-run.[/QUOTE]No. More people will get the minimum calories needed to survive and reproduce, and that's all that counts. People who eat "naturally" may do better, but the globe can support rather fewer of such dietary prima donas. I farm naturally. I eat my own produce primarily. I also eat GMO on occasion, I never eat fast food.

 

[Sapiens]

Your first sentence is wrong. Some theists accept evolution, but they have let themselves be misguided and misdirected from the Bible. If the God Theory is allowed in, and creation scientists are allowed to speak about creation, then it would be the end of evolution as people will figure it out for themselves. That's the only reason why science won't accept creation now. It was different before the 1800s. Christianity and science ruled. It really does appear that atheism led to uniformitarianism and Darwinism.

Such foolishness. There are many, many theist evolutionists (start with all Catholics). The God Theory was replaced over two hundred years because it could not stand up to scrutiny ... but evolution could. Science does not accept creation because it does not work ... but evolution does. Accept reality and move on.

 

[james bond]

Given that evolution does not hinge on God's existence or non-existence, then no, it is not wrong.

I said "theists", which would include more than just Christians. It would include deists, Muslims and Hindus who believe in a god but not the Bible. Belief in God is not dependent on belief in the Bible and especially not dependent on belief in a literal reading of the Bible.

Creation scientists of one stripe or another have spoken for hundreds of years and they are still speaking about creation all the time in churches, on the Internet and in select schools. Yet evolution is still accepted by the majority of scientists, be they theists or not.

Depends on how you define "creation". If you mean "everything was made in six days", then no, science wouldn't accept that even if evolution was somehow proven false. Radiometric dating shows such not to be the case.

Darwin believed in God when he formulated the theory of evolution, so no.

No, the amount of genetic information is equal because it is a single nucleotide polymorphism. The length of the DNA and transcribed amino acids is the same in the mutant as it is in the normal type. In other cases, such as gene duplication and subsequent mutations within the duplicated gene, the length of DNA is increased. The original information is retained in the original copy of the gene and new information is added from the mutations in the copied gene. Just such a thing happened with citrate-metabolizing E.coli strains.

"Positive" mutations enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce. A mutation doesn't have to add information and can even remove information from a genome yet still have a positive effect on survival. In places where malaria is widespread, the sickle-cell mutation aids in survival and reproduction because it frustrates the life cycle of the malaria parasite. In those individuals with only one copy of the gene, they have little to no negative effects from the mutation but still have the malaria resistance. It is a textbook example of a beneficial mutation.

1. It does hinge on God's existence/non-existence and that's what I was trying to point out or else science would accept the supernatural and The God Theory. Creation scientists would get published in Science and Nature.
2. Ok.
3. No, creation scientists do not believe the ToE. I would think many scientists and professors do not believe in ToE even though they wouldn't say it outright. Their funding would be cut and they would lose their jobs.
4. Yes, everything was made in six days. You've been taught to believe radiometric dating is correct, but it isn't. It's based on the findings of Clair Patterson, but it isn't correct. Science can show this isn't correct. Then there is the chronological layers of stratified rock. The names of the layers do not correspond to time, but location. How these stratified layers were formed and how the fossil record was misconstrued can be experimentally demonstrated and proven in nature by what happened at Mt. St. Helens. Once someone compares creation science versus secular science, then they'll see the truth for themselves.
5. Darwin was influenced by atheist Charles Lyell and his theories on uniformitarianism in the 1800s. It contradicts what creation scientists were teaching with catastrophism before that time. Christianity and their scientists created science to show the glory of God. Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, was a Christian but he wanted leave God out of the science.
6. This probably can be a debate within itself. Evolutionists want to believe this, but the evidence isn't there. Do you have some way to back up your statements? And what is the purpose of it? It does not show macroevolution as no new information can be made from scratch. Many creation scientists claim there is no new information and mutations have a loss of the information. We disagree on too many things in your statements and its difficult to decipher unless I know what your definitions are. For example, I agreed that there may be a beneficial mutation with sickle-cell anemia, but when the protein loses its function and it causes death to the contractor, it isn't beneficial. I would like these evo scientists claiming this mutation as beneficial to infect themselves with it to see first-hand whether it is truly beneficial or not.

Here's the creation science definition::
A mutation is any spontaneous heritable change in DNA sequence that contributes to genetic variability. It results from 2 possible mechanisms.

1. Cellular accidents during processes like replication, recombination or transposition.
2. Exposures to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays.

If even one of the nucleotides in a gene is changed to another, the a new variation of the allele has has been added to the population, and a different amino acid may be assembled into the protein during gene expression.
http://creationwiki.org/Gene_expression

 

[james bond]

Such foolishness. There are many, many theist evolutionists (start with all Catholics). The God Theory was replaced over two hundred years because it could not stand up to scrutiny ... but evolution could. Science does not accept creation because it does not work ... but evolution does. Accept reality and move on.

I think the foolish ones are the atheists. Basically, believers or non-believers has to be right. There can only be one truth. There has to be a God or no gods. An afterlife or no afterlife. Most religions and people want a final judgment. Even Buddhists want some kind of judgment with karma. It's the only fair thing to do when people can choose between good and evil. Otherwise our short life here on Earth doesn't mean much.

I have accepted reality. Science does not accept creation because it does work, science backs it up and would show that evolution is bogus. Many scientists do not believe in evolution, but do not say it because they'll lose their funding or their jobs. However, the scientific establishment today will not consider the God Theory nor the supernatural. Creation scientists can't get published in Science or Nature. Thus, they're on their own. Eventually, the schools will come around to teaching some form of creation in schools and it will catch on. Evolution does not provide the answers that people are seeking. What's ironic is Christians created science and the scientific method. It wasn't atheists.

The God Theory does work. I've been giving examples throughout this thread. The God Theory follows Occam's Razor. For example, at one time secular scientists believed in an eternal universe, but that's been rendered pseudoscience. The current theory backs up Genesis except replace the bang with God. One generation believed in the missing link and evolution because of the Piltdown Man. However, that's been proven to be a fraud. If evolution is true, then why has it been a fraud and their theories ending up as pseudoscience? And how does the Bible become the world's best selling book at an astronomical 5 billion copies if the God Theory is a fraud? To the contrary, evolution has been fraudulent, and yet you keep believing and stating these wrongisms.

Why can't you accept that we can't create an universe from scratch or "invisible" particles? Even if you can generate the energy to do this, why would it create a system that conserves this energy? You know, we spent billions on trying to understand the universe with the LHC, but it isn't going to create another universe or generate a black hole. Why do people believe in such myths? We may find a better source of energy, build a more powerful nuclear weapon and find some answers to how our universe works, but it's not going to find how the universe began. Otherwise, they would have found some evidence for it already, but they still do not understand the four fundamental forces.

 

[Parsimony]

1. It does hinge on God's existence/non-existence and that's what I was trying to point out or else science would accept the supernatural and The God Theory. Creation scientists would get published in Science and Nature.

How does evolution in any way hinge on God's existence or non-existence? Where does it say in any evolutionary biology textbook that "X part of evolution only works if we assume there is no God"?

3. No, creation scientists do not believe the ToE. I would think many scientists and professors do not believe in ToE even though they wouldn't say it outright. Their funding would be cut and they would lose their jobs.

Creationists make up the minority in the scientific community.

4. Yes, everything was made in six days. You've been taught to believe radiometric dating is correct, but it isn't. It's based on the findings of Clair Patterson, but it isn't correct. Science can show this isn't correct. Then there is the chronological layers of stratified rock. The names of the layers do not correspond to time, but location. How these stratified layers were formed and how the fossil record was misconstrued can be experimentally demonstrated and proven in nature by what happened at Mt. St. Helens. Once someone compares creation science versus secular science, then they'll see the truth for themselves.

I know how radiometric dating works and I know that many claims of it being invalid are based on misuse of the methods (such as the Mt. St. Helens thing you mention).

5. Darwin was influenced by atheist Charles Lyell and his theories on uniformitarianism in the 1800s. It contradicts what creation scientists were teaching with catastrophism before that time. Christianity and their scientists created science to show the glory of God. Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, was a Christian but he wanted leave God out of the science.

Whether he was influenced by atheists or not doesn't matter because he still believed in God when he formulated evolution.

6. This probably can be a debate within itself. Evolutionists want to believe this, but the evidence isn't there. Do you have some way to back up your statements? And what is the purpose of it?

I gave you examples of beneficial mutations with the link I posted before.

It does not show macroevolution as no new information can be made from scratch.

Evolutionary biologists don't claim that new information "can be made from scratch". New information comes from a modification of existing information (i.e. mutations of genes).

Many creation scientists claim there is no new information and mutations have a loss of the information.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Mutations which both increase and decrease the length of DNA are known. Do you deny that gene duplication and nucleotide insertions occur?

We disagree on too many things in your statements and its difficult to decipher unless I know what your definitions are. For example, I agreed that there may be a beneficial mutation with sickle-cell anemia, but when the protein loses its function and it causes death to the contractor, it isn't beneficial.

A beneficial mutation is any mutation that improves the likelihood of survival and reproduction in the organism's environment. In malaria-prone areas, the sickle-cell allele improves the chances of survival and reproduction, so it fits the evolutionary definition of a beneficial mutation.

I would like these evo scientists claiming this mutation as beneficial to infect themselves with it to see first-hand whether it is truly beneficial or not.

Now you are straw-manning. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the organism likes the effects that the mutation has on itself, it's all down to survival and reproduction as measures of whether a mutation is beneficial or not. Besides, in areas where malaria is rare, the sickle cell allele is not beneficial.

 

[james bond]

How does evolution in any way hinge on God's existence or non-existence? Where does it say in any evolutionary biology textbook that "X part of evolution only works if we assume there is no God"?

Creationists make up the minority in the scientific community.

I know how radiometric dating works and I know that many claims of it being invalid are based on misuse of the methods (such as the Mt. St. Helens thing you mention).

Whether he was influenced by atheists or not doesn't matter because he still believed in God when he formulated evolution.

I gave you examples of beneficial mutations with the link I posted before.

Evolutionary biologists don't claim that new information "can be made from scratch". New information comes from a modification of existing information (i.e. mutations of genes).

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Mutations which both increase and decrease the length of DNA are known. Do you deny that gene duplication and nucleotide insertions occur?

A beneficial mutation is any mutation that improves the likelihood of survival and reproduction in the organism's environment. In malaria-prone areas, the sickle-cell allele improves the chances of survival and reproduction, so it fits the evolutionary definition of a beneficial mutation.

Now you are straw-manning. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the organism likes the effects that the mutation has on itself, it's all down to survival and reproduction as measures of whether a mutation is beneficial or not. Besides, in areas where malaria is rare, the sickle cell allele is not beneficial.

1a. ToE doesn't just encompass biology, and it's a biology textbook not an "evolutionary biology" text (maybe a few states are different?). Is that your argument? If so, then I know more about evolution than you do. Here is where I get my ToE basis: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_01

1b. Let's suppose ToE is fact as many secular scientists claim. Then I can say God created evolution of The God Theory (TGT). You agree facts can be used by everyone. However, why would He need to create evolution if it could have been bypassed? Why take billions of years to create Earth once the universe was created? Next, assume God is fact. Then there is no need for evolution. So, God gets in the way of evolution. What's left? God does not exist is fact. Then you can claim ToE created the universe or ToE is the best explanation for the facts, but I suppose someone will claim aliens did it. Not I ha ha.

1c. In biology, natural selection is big and is probably fact or can be considered a principle or law. However, it isn't just for evolutionists, but for creation scientists, too. Alfred Russel Wallace is co-credited with it and not just Darwin. In fact, there were some questions of plagiarism of Darwin as he had to prove he got it published first in minutes time. Is it a mutation that explains diversification? Creation scientists do not think it's a mutation, but what the settings were originally set at. Mutations would be some organism that doesn't change. Are there any that do not change? Not that I am aware of.

2. Wrong again. I go by Pew Research which shows 33% believe in God and 18% as deist or theist in 2009.

3. Radiometric dating has invalid assumptions which makes all the readings invalid. It's an expensive process so it can't be done just by anyone. A good example is with the moon rocks. Many different readings were taken, but only the ones which fit the presupposed dates were accepted. Instead, all of the readings should have been tossed as invalid. People have taken radiometric readings of recent items and they get millions of years. How can one trust the method? It's a circular argument in favor of the evolutionary timeline, i.e radiometric dating fits the evolution timeline and the evolution timeline corresponds to the radiometric dating.

4. They're not really "beneficial" since no one will infect themselves with it. Beneficial mutation would be organisms which lead to an increase in bone density. to be able to sleep less and be more productive, live past 120 years, have better memory and so on without causing disease and people would be glad to be infected by them.

5. Again, I do not know where you get this strawman, but the test remains if it's true, then the scientists should infect themselves to show this is good. Better living through chemistry, biotechnology and mutation, right?

6. C'mon gene modification can be done by high school students. I can do it in the home with some basic equipment, but my mutations would be neutral even though I wouldn't ingest it. Now, the gene duplication and nucleotide insertions would require sophisticated equipment and special knowledge. But, I doubt anyone would eat their work. Can you show me some scientist who practices what they preach and infect themselves? Then more people would believe in GMO foods and organisms. Are there other fields besides agriculture and biotechnology, where mutations are being developed?

7 and 8. Let's agree to disagree as we're not getting anywhere with mutations. I've addressed all your points, but you ignore mine and state I am using strawman. Creation science is not a strawman. No one is going to infect themselves with sickle-cell anemia. Do you happily eat GMO-foods despite the risks of allergies and cancer? is the rate of cancer going up alarmingly? I think so, and I do not think we can avoid GMO ingestion completely as we do not know what every source is.

 

[Sapiens]

I think the foolish ones are the atheists. Basically, believers or non-believers has to be right. There can only be one truth. There has to be a God or no gods. An afterlife or no afterlife. Most religions and people want a final judgment. Even Buddhists want some kind of judgment with karma. It's the only fair thing to do when people can choose between good and evil. Otherwise our short life here on Earth doesn't mean much.

Think all you want, but it is logic and quality of thought that win the day.

OK one truth, but that truth must be evidence based, there is no evidence what-so-ever for the existence of a deity, an afterlife, a final judgement, etc. Our short life here on Earth is, in a cosmic sense, rather meaningless ... so what? What I am hearing from you is your ego, your unwillingness to accept your humble station.

I have accepted reality. Science does not accept creation because it does work, science backs it up and would show that evolution is bogus.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Science does not back creation up, it shreds it. You have coupled your religion so closely to the fable of creation that you you can not lose one without losing the other. Must be tough.

Many scientists do not believe in evolution, but do not say it because they'll lose their funding or their jobs.

People who advocate unsupportable fables are not taken seriously, is that unexpected?

However, the scientific establishment today will not consider the God Theory nor the supernatural.

For good reason, science is evidence based and the God Theory has no evidence.

Creation scientists can't get published in Science or Nature. Thus, they're on their own.

For good reason, science is evidence based and so called Creation Scientists have no evidence.

Eventually, the schools will come around to teaching some form of creation in schools and it will catch on.

Seems to be quite the opposite. Creation has lost every battle and is now by law banned in the science classroom.

Evolution does not provide the answers that people are seeking. What's ironic is Christians created science and the scientific method. It wasn't atheists.

Science predates Christianity. Sorry.
The God Theory does work. I've been giving examples throughout this thread.
[/quote]No ... you have not.

The God Theory follows Occam's Razor.

You add another level of complexity and then invoke parsimony? How droll.

For example, at one time secular scientists believed in an eternal universe, but that's been rendered pseudoscience.

Science learns and changes, that's a good thing.

The current theory backs up Genesis except replace the bang with God.

That works, except it goes against parsimony.

One generation believed in the missing link and evolution because of the Piltdown Man. However, that's been proven to be a fraud.

Pilltdown man was a fraud, all the other finds were legitimate.

If evolution is true, then why has it been a fraud and their theories ending up as pseudoscience?

Some things have been falsified over the years, but not found to be frauds. Science advances and refines, that's how it works.

And how does the Bible become the world's best selling book at an astronomical 5 billion copies if the God Theory is a fraud?

Book sales are not a measure of truth ... that's just another logical fallacy.

To the contrary, evolution has been fraudulent, and yet you keep believing and stating these wrongisms.

Because all the evidence says that evolution is correct.

Why can't you accept that we can't create an universe from scratch or "invisible" particles? Even if you can generate the energy to do this, why would it create a system that conserves this energy? You know, we spent billions on trying to understand the universe with the LHC, but it isn't going to create another universe or generate a black hole. Why do people believe in such myths? We may find a better source of energy, build a more powerful nuclear weapon and find some answers to how our universe works, but it's not going to find how the universe began. Otherwise, they would have found some evidence for it already, but they still do not understand the four fundamental forces.

We may not find ever find out how the universe began, so what? That is not evidence of god ... see you always get back to arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps. The cliche is not in the answer, but rather in your question.

 

[james bond]

I did think of a mutation that people are willing to ingest and that is steroids. Are they safe? Probably not. Thus, athletes are going for PEDs now which is supposed to be safer because they're naturally modified. I'm not sure if they're based on "mutations" as we know it or per my definition above, but it still has side affects. Does anyone have more info on this?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/10-performance-enhancing-drugs1.htm

 

[Sapiens]

1a. ToE doesn't just encompass biology, and it's a biology textbook not an "evolutionary biology" text (maybe a few states are different?). Is that your argument? If so, then I know more about evolution than you do. Here is where I get my ToE basis: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_01

Good source but I fear you do not understand what you read there.

1b. Let's suppose ToE is fact as many secular scientists claim. Then I can say God created evolution of The God Theory (TGT). You agree facts can be used by everyone. However, why would He need to create evolution if it could have been bypassed? Why take billions of years to create Earth once the universe was created? Next, assume God is fact. Then there is no need for evolution. So, God gets in the way of evolution. What's left? God does not exist is fact. Then you can claim ToE created the universe or ToE is the best explanation for the facts, but I suppose someone will claim aliens did it. Not I ha ha.

The Deist or Theist view is an arguable one, I say that it fails on the basis of a lack of evidence and parsimony.

1c. In biology, natural selection is big and is probably fact or can be considered a principle or law. However, it isn't just for evolutionists, but for creation scientists, too. Alfred Russel Wallace is co-credited with it and not just Darwin. In fact, there were some questions of plagiarism of Darwin as he had to prove he got it published first in minutes time. Is it a mutation that explains diversification? Creation scientists do not think it's a mutation, but what the settings were originally set at. Mutations would be some organism that doesn't change. Are there any that do not change? Not that I am aware of.

There is clear evidence that Darwin had precedence and was magnanimous in sharing credit with Wallace. There is no question of plagiarism by Darwin or Wallace.

Mutation supplies the raw material but Natural Selection drive evolution.

With respect to your description of what so-called Creation Scientists believe your description is so confused that you need to rewrite the question.

2. Wrong again. I go by Pew Research which shows 33% believe in God and 18% as deist or theist in 2009.

Who cares?

3. Radiometric dating has invalid assumptions which makes all the readings invalid. It's an expensive process so it can't be done just by anyone. A good example is with the moon rocks. Many different readings were taken, but only the ones which fit the presupposed dates were accepted. Instead, all of the readings should have been tossed as invalid. People have taken radiometric readings of recent items and they get millions of years. How can one trust the method? It's a circular argument in favor of the evolutionary timeline, i.e radiometric dating fits the evolution timeline and the evolution timeline corresponds to the radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is a well proven and cleanly calibrated technique. Your objections stem from ignorance not from reality.

4. They're not really "beneficial" since no one will infect themselves with it. Beneficial mutation would be organisms which lead to an increase in bone density. to be able to sleep less and be more productive, live past 120 years, have better memory and so on without causing disease and people would be glad to be infected by them.

No, if higher bone density, less sleep or longer life, better memory, etc., were beneficial they'd be the norm. You need to look up "balancing selection." For example, if cats slept less they'd quickly exhaust their prey.

Your inability to properly use the quote function renders the rest of this post too boring to answer. Ask the questions clearly and I will answer.

 

[Parsimony]

1a. ToE doesn't just encompass biology, and it's a biology textbook not an "evolutionary biology" text (maybe a few states are different?). Is that your argument? If so, then I know more about evolution than you do. Here is where I get my ToE basis: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_01

I'm talking specifically about biological evolution.

1b. Let's suppose ToE is fact as many secular scientists claim. Then I can say God created evolution of The God Theory (TGT). You agree facts can be used by everyone. However, why would He need to create evolution if it could have been bypassed? Why take billions of years to create Earth once the universe was created?

Why wait six days before creating everything when He could have bypassed that and created everything in an instant? Time is meaningless to God. He can take as long as He wants and use whatever method He wants for creating. I could just as easily ask why He would use such a long-lasting and all-consuming process such as an Earth-wide flood to kill all the sinners during Noah's time when He could just as easily have simply willed all the sinners dead in an instant without having to kill all of those animals that did nothing wrong and wait for over a hundred days before the Earth could start repopulating itself. It's basically the same kind of "problem" you are positing for evolution: taking extra time and casualties to achieve a goal that could have been accomplished much more quickly and efficiently if He had wanted to do it.

Next, assume God is fact. Then there is no need for evolution. So, God gets in the way of evolution. What's left? God does not exist is fact.

Not if He wanted to use evolution. Then there is no theistic problem for evolution at all. Just because you might not like the implications of God using evolution that doesn't mean that He didn't. A deistic god especially wouldn't have any issues here.

Then you can claim ToE created the universe or ToE is the best explanation for the facts, but I suppose someone will claim aliens did it. Not I ha ha.

Given that I'm talking specifically about biological evolution, no, that doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe.

1c. In biology, natural selection is big and is probably fact or can be considered a principle or law. However, it isn't just for evolutionists, but for creation scientists, too. Alfred Russel Wallace is co-credited with it and not just Darwin. In fact, there were some questions of plagiarism of Darwin as he had to prove he got it published first in minutes time. Is it a mutation that explains diversification? Creation scientists do not think it's a mutation, but what the settings were originally set at. Mutations would be some organism that doesn't change. Are there any that do not change? Not that I am aware of.

So now you're changing the definition of mutation? Mutations aren't "organisms that don't change", they are changes in the DNA of organisms. Mutations, by definition, are change.

2. Wrong again. I go by Pew Research which shows 33% believe in God and 18% as deist or theist in 2009.

"Creationists" and "theists" are not the same thing. Creationists deny evolution but theists do not necessarily do so. Theistic evolutionists do exist.

3. Radiometric dating has invalid assumptions which makes all the readings invalid.

Such as?

It's an expensive process so it can't be done just by anyone.

So? The same could be said of particle accelerator experiments, but I don't see you doubting that subatomic particles are real.

A good example is with the moon rocks. Many different readings were taken, but only the ones which fit the presupposed dates were accepted. Instead, all of the readings should have been tossed as invalid.

Gonna need a link for that.

People have taken radiometric readings of recent items and they get millions of years. How can one trust the method?

That's when they use methods or devices that aren't supposed to be used for items that young or when there is contamination. That's like saying you can't trust a measuring cup to properly measure the volume of liquids because it isn't able to accurately measure the volume of a lumpy rock: you're using the wrong tools.

It's a circular argument in favor of the evolutionary timeline, i.e radiometric dating fits the evolution timeline and the evolution timeline corresponds to the radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is achieved by measuring isotope ratios, which has nothing to do biological evolution at all. The ratios would be the same whether anyone had come up with the idea of evolution or not.

4. They're not really "beneficial" since no one will infect themselves with it. Beneficial mutation would be organisms which lead to an increase in bone density. to be able to sleep less and be more productive, live past 120 years, have better memory and so on without causing disease and people would be glad to be infected by them.

You are straw-manning the definition of a beneficial mutation again. Oh, but since you said this:

Beneficial mutation would be organisms which lead to an increase in bone density.

I would like to inform you that exactly such a mutation does exist: "Unbreakable" bones prompt a hunt for a hunt for genes. So there you have it, a mutation that fits the definition of beneficial by your own words. If you go back and change your mind, then you will be committing the "moving the goalposts" fallacy and I will have to add that to the fallacy tally at the bottom of my post.

5. Again, I do not know where you get this strawman, but the test remains if it's true, then the scientists should infect themselves to show this is good. Better living through chemistry, biotechnology and mutation, right?

First of all, how are you going to "infect" yourself with the sickle cell allele? It's not a contagion. Plus it's only "good" for gaining a resistance to malaria. In it's absence, being a sickle cell homozygote is harmful. A sickle cell heterozygote, however, has the benefit of malaria resistance, so your claim that it will make you sick or kill you is not true for heterozygotes.

6. C'mon gene modification can be done by high school students. I can do it in the home with some basic equipment, but my mutations would be neutral even though I wouldn't ingest it. Now, the gene duplication and nucleotide insertions would require sophisticated equipment and special knowledge. But, I doubt anyone would eat their work. Can you show me some scientist who practices what they preach and infect themselves? Then more people would believe in GMO foods and organisms. Are there other fields besides agriculture and biotechnology, where mutations are being developed?

Whether people want mutations or not is irrelevant to whether mutations exist that aid in survival or not. We know that being a sickle cell heterozygote aids in survival in malaria-stricken areas. Do you deny this?

7 and 8. Let's agree to disagree as we're not getting anywhere with mutations. I've addressed all your points,

You haven't addressed my question as to whether you agree that gene duplication and nucleotide insertions increase the length of DNA or not.

but you ignore mine and state I am using strawman.

You did use a straw-man when you tried to redefine what a beneficial mutation is.

Creation science is not a strawman.

Now you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said that creation science is a straw-man. I said that your definition of a beneficial mutation is a straw-man because you think that an organism has to like or want a particular mutation in order for it to be beneficial. It doesn't. All it has to do is help the organism survive and reproduce in a way that more than offsets any negative effects generated by that same mutation. If it can do that, then natural selection will make it more common in the gene pool.

No one is going to infect themselves with sickle-cell anemia. Do you happily eat GMO-foods despite the risks of allergies and cancer? is the rate of cancer going up alarmingly? I think so, and I do not think we can avoid GMO ingestion completely as we do not know what every source is.

I don't care about the issue of GMO's in this debate. That's not the same thing as natural evolution and it's already well-known that natural evolution isn't all peaches and cream where everything gets perfectly beneficial mutations all the time. Evolution is messy with a lot of death and illnesses.

So let's see what the fallacy tally is:

-Evolution is atheistic (a straw-man)
-Biological evolution is the same as the evolution of the universe or somehow depends on it (a straw-man)
-Radiometric dating depends on evolution (a straw-man)
-A mutation is only beneficial if people want it (a straw-man)
-Mutations are organisms that don't change (a straw-man)
-Reference to GMO's as if it has something to do with natural evolution (a red herring)

Total: 6

 

[gnostic]

"Creationists" and "theists" are not the same thing. Creationists deny evolution but theists do not necessarily do so. Theistic evolutionists do exist.

I don't think james bond realize that there are plenty of theists here, including Christians, accept the theory of evolution as accepted explanation for natural phenomena of changes over time.

The official stance of Roman Catholic, accepts evolution. Of course that doesn't stop individual Catholics not accepting evolution.

I think the 2 main reasons why creationists don't accept evolution are:

1. Ignorance. They don't understand the mechanisms of evolution. For instance, they make the assumption that evolution have to do with origin of FIRST life.
   
2. They have been lied to by creationists, and easily falls victims to creationist propaganda.

For example, many here still wrongly assume evolution=atheism; "wrongly", because as you pointed out Parsimony, there are theists who do accept evolution, like yourself for instance. This is because creationists have been indoctrinated into this baseless propaganda.

 

[james bond]

Good source but I fear you do not understand what you read there.
The Deist or Theist view is an arguable one, I say that it fails on the basis of a lack of evidence and parsimony.
There is clear evidence that Darwin had precedence and was magnanimous in sharing credit with Wallace. There is no question of plagiarism by Darwin or Wallace.

Mutation supplies the raw material but Natural Selection drive evolution.

With respect to your description of what so-called Creation Scientists believe your description is so confused that you need to rewrite the question.
Who cares?
Radiometric dating is a well proven and cleanly calibrated technique. Your objections stem from ignorance not from reality.
No, if higher bone density, less sleep or longer life, better memory, etc., were beneficial they'd be the norm. You need to look up "balancing selection." For example, if cats slept less they'd quickly exhaust their prey.

Your inability to properly use the quote function renders the rest of this post too boring to answer. Ask the questions clearly and I will answer.

1. Ha ha. It's wrong though and is evidence that the God Theory is not considered. So, those who know evolution just got one side of the story. While the creation scientist is better familiar with both sides.
2. Darwin was worried about plagiarism. He was lucky Wallace was away from home. Really, it's not about Darwin so much anymore. That's ancient history compared to today. Today, it's the battle for the teaching of creation is schools. It started with the Scopes trial in 1925 and has continued on. Why else do we get the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Lucy shenanigans? It also is about big money and the patenting of gene technology or anything to do with mutations. Thus, the lines are drawn. Do you agree this is what's at stake and why atheist scientists get all the funding?
3. See, you're not listening to the other side of the story and that will become important later on.
4. The creation scientists and I care.
5. Again, you miss the boat from my POV. I thought about why someone would ingest or infect themselves with modified genes from the discussion with Parsimony and found steroids and today it's PEDs. Those drugs go to the heart of what I was talking about in terms of the end state. However, there are negative consequences in terms of disease and who knows what other changes. It think steroid and PED mutations are more interesting than continuing debating sickle-cell anemia. At least, people put their health on the line and ingest the stuff willingly. I chatted with Victor Conte on twitter about PEDs. He says he isn't in it anymore, but his knowledge is very keen. He promotes his own snak pak which are vitamins and supplements to enhance performance. He said Marlon Bird, a MLB baseball player was a client of his since two years ago. Just recently, Byrd was suspended for testing positive for PEDs.

Ha ha. You finally got one right. Christians here have been saying that from the get go. They were the norm. Adam and Eve were perfect before the sin. Ancient peoples lived longer, were in better health, had better genes, could have sex between close relatives and not worry about genetic defects. We found the remains of the people of Pompeii with perfect teeth and good bone structure. Evolution found Lucy without a knee and claimed she/he/it walked upright.

6. We'll discuss radiometric dating at another time. Also, stratification. And a bunch of other topics. Let's see where the mutation talk goes besides sickle-cell anemia and malaria prevention. Christians are big on preventing malaria and do fund raisers, but I have not heard of any doing genetic modification and mutations to combat it.
7. Maybe it's by intelligent design to cut you off. So far, you failed to address how algae or bacteria started when discussing abiogenesis. Even that name has been usurped from creation. The problem is even the single-cell is complex. It follows the thought experiment of the 25 parts. model car and bucket. You get the bucket. I get the 25 parts and the car as prize for God created it on the third day and Occam's Razor.

 

[james bond]

I'm talking specifically about biological evolution.

Why wait six days before creating everything when He could have bypassed that and created everything in an instant? Time is meaningless to God. He can take as long as He wants and use whatever method He wants for creating. I could just as easily ask why He would use such a long-lasting and all-consuming process such as an Earth-wide flood to kill all the sinners during Noah's time when He could just as easily have simply willed all the sinners dead in an instant without having to kill all of those animals that did nothing wrong and wait for over a hundred days before the Earth could start repopulating itself. It's basically the same kind of "problem" you are positing for evolution: taking extra time and casualties to achieve a goal that could have been accomplished much more quickly and efficiently if He had wanted to do it.

1. Yes, I figured as much. Do you agree now that the ToE is all-encompassing or else we're relegated to what the tree of life?

That's a good question. The Bible provides the answer. According to Exodus 20.9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's workweek: work six days, rest one.

I'll check why a global flood? From a disaster standpoint, a flood would be the way to go if you want extinction.

Not if He wanted to use evolution. Then there is no theistic problem for evolution at all. Just because you might not like the implications of God using evolution that doesn't mean that He didn't. A deistic god especially wouldn't have any issues here.

2. Hm... why do you state God could've created everything in an instant with Genesis in order to contradict the Bible, and then state He could have used evolution and billions of years and not have any issues? Am I missing something with your definition of a deistic god?

Given that I'm talking specifically about biological evolution, no, that doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe.

3. ToE covers much more, but since you like biology, how did flowers come from plants? Creation states we found them one day, the same with an oak tree. Thus, creation scientists know the oak tree came first.

So now you're changing the definition of mutation? Mutations aren't "organisms that don't change", they are changes in the DNA of organisms. Mutations, by definition, are change.

4. I gave you the creation definition. That definition does not sound very scientific.

"Creationists" and "theists" are not the same thing. Creationists deny evolution but theists do not necessarily do so. Theistic evolutionists do exist.


5. You're still referring to biological evolution right? Creationists have baraminolgy instead of biological evolution. What is the difference between theistic evolution and regular biological evolution?

Will stop here. Time to recharge my cells.

========

Such as?

So? The same could be said of particle accelerator experiments, but I don't see you doubting that subatomic particles are real.

Gonna need a link for that.

That's when they use methods or devices that aren't supposed to be used for items that young or when there is contamination. That's like saying you can't trust a measuring cup to properly measure the volume of liquids because it isn't able to accurately measure the volume of a lumpy rock: you're using the wrong tools.

Radiometric dating is achieved by measuring isotope ratios, which has nothing to do biological evolution at all. The ratios would be the same whether anyone had come up with the idea of evolution or not.

You are straw-manning the definition of a beneficial mutation again. Oh, but since you said this:

I would like to inform you that exactly such a mutation does exist: "Unbreakable" bones prompt a hunt for a hunt for genes. So there you have it, a mutation that fits the definition of beneficial by your own words. If you go back and change your mind, then you will be committing the "moving the goalposts" fallacy and I will have to add that to the fallacy tally at the bottom of my post.

First of all, how are you going to "infect" yourself with the sickle cell allele? It's not a contagion. Plus it's only "good" for gaining a resistance to malaria. In it's absence, being a sickle cell homozygote is harmful. A sickle cell heterozygote, however, has the benefit of malaria resistance, so your claim that it will make you sick or kill you is not true for heterozygotes.

Whether people want mutations or not is irrelevant to whether mutations exist that aid in survival or not. We know that being a sickle cell heterozygote aids in survival in malaria-stricken areas. Do you deny this?

You haven't addressed my question as to whether you agree that gene duplication and nucleotide insertions increase the length of DNA or not.

You did use a straw-man when you tried to redefine what a beneficial mutation is.

Now you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said that creation science is a straw-man. I said that your definition of a beneficial mutation is a straw-man because you think that an organism has to like or want a particular mutation in order for it to be beneficial. It doesn't. All it has to do is help the organism survive and reproduce in a way that more than offsets any negative effects generated by that same mutation. If it can do that, then natural selection will make it more common in the gene pool.

I don't care about the issue of GMO's in this debate. That's not the same thing as natural evolution and it's already well-known that natural evolution isn't all peaches and cream where everything gets perfectly beneficial mutations all the time. Evolution is messy with a lot of death and illnesses.

So let's see what the fallacy tally is:

-Evolution is atheistic (a straw-man)
-Biological evolution is the same as the evolution of the universe or somehow depends on it (a straw-man)
-Radiometric dating depends on evolution (a straw-man)
-A mutation is only beneficial if people want it (a straw-man)
-Mutations are organisms that don't change (a straw-man)
-Reference to GMO's as if it has something to do with natural evolution (a red herring)

Total: 6

 

[shmogie]

Thief, and some of these creationists simply don't understand the definition of scientific or empirical EVIDENCE, leibowde84.

Judging by the way they very loosely used the term "evidence", it would seem that "evidence" means any fanciful wishes they can dream of, in another word - "make-believe" or "wishful-thinking".

Thief also like to evade direct questions, which demonstrate his lack of integrity, with some of his favourite but meaningless catchphrases, eg

"Spirit, first..." or "Spirit before substance"
"You can't put God in petri-dish",
Or something on the line like God has "no fingerprint"​

He used these nonsensical phrases to evade question about presenting actual evidences to support his delusional claims, as if using these phrases answer all questions directed at him.

You can ask and ask the same question over and over again, he will never give you any answer that have evidences to support his claims...well, at least not in your lifetime.

I have never said there was evidence of God re the BB,

Mythological? Hardly, if Jesus was as well documented we'd not be having this discussion.

Encyclopedia Britannica says: Constantin-François de Chasseboeuf, count de Volney, (born Feb. 3, 1757, Craon,France—died April 25, 1820, Paris) historian and philosopher, whose work LesRuines . . . epitomized the rationalist historical and political thought of the 18th century.

As a student in Paris, Volney frequented the salon of Madame Helvétius, widow of the philosopher Claude Helvétius, and knew the Baron d’Holbach and Benjamin Franklin. Following an early interest in history and ancient languages, Volney traveled in Egypt and Syria, after which he wrote Voyage en Syrie et en Égypte . . . ,2 vol. (1787; Travels Through Syria and Egypt . . .). In 1791 his most influential work appeared, Les Ruines, ou méditations sur les révolutions des empires (revolution as a result of the abandoning of the principles of natural law and religion, equality, and liberty.

As a member of the Estates-General in 1789 and the Constituent Assembly in 1790, Volney urged the establishment of the National Guard and the division of France into communes and departments. In 1792 he bought an estate in Corsica, hoping to improve agriculture by the example of intense cultivation. While visiting Paris in 1793 he was, as a Girondist, imprisoned during the Reign of Terror. After his release he served as professor of history at the École Normale (“Normal School”) at Paris (1794), and he also visited the United States from 1795 to 1798. Although he was a senator under Napoleon and was created comte d’empire (1808), he opposed the empire. Louis XVIII created him a peer in 1814.

Fraser's Magazine for Town and Country, Volume 71 says: "Washington even was glad to have Volney as his guest at Mount Vernon."


and Charles-François Dupuis has an entry in: The English cyclopædia: a new dictionary of universal knowledge ..., Volume 2

So ... both are rather well documented, unlike Jesus, each has (besides personally authored works) numerous contemporary references..
So an STD (the highest degree granted in the Catholic educational system) does not qualify you as a scholar? Scholars must void everything they learned as children? Now you're really over-reaching.

Thomas L. Brodie meets the criteria, scholar and Jesus denier.

Richard Carrier is clearly a scholar, he concludes that Jesus is mathematically unlikely. This is the standard used in science, or are we scientists not also scholars? I am not trying to say you have to agree with him, just that you must recognize that he falsifies your claim.

You're now showing your true colors, prevarication and slight of hand, and an inability to stand-up and admit when you are wrong.

Even if three of these four were to be deemed inadmissible, you'd still lose, even if all four were, I have perhaps a hundred or so more, start with: John Mackinnon Robertson, George Robert Stowe Mead, John Eleazer Remsburg, Christian Heinrich Arthur Drews, Robert McNair, Earl Doherty, Alexander Jacob, and Thomas L. Thompson.

Remember, all I need is one who is both a scholar and a Jesus denier.

What the hell, I'm a scholar with over sixty publications and I rather doubt the historicity of Jesus, That alone gives the lie to to your claim.