Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[SkepticThinker]

It really seems you are reeling here, Quroboros. You have provided nothing to show evidence for life being formed in space during pre-ancient times while I showed how the chicken came to be. In fact, I showed you all of the creation in six days. I can't wait billions of years for you to come up with something. We already waited 3 billion years according to your timeline.

How can the Anthropic Principle, as interpreted by Paul Davies, be true if the universe can't produce life? Who came up with that anyway? One key you missed is what Duane Gish said because you chose to ignore his great knowledge. Not only does nature need the 23 amino acids, it needs the right ones.

I think I posted this earlier, "The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form."

- Duane Gish

http://www.icr.org/article/3140/

========

MESSENGER RNA—Special "messenger RNA" molecules are needed. Without them, DNA is useless in the body. Consider the story of s-RNA:

"The code in the gene (which is DNA, of course) is used to construct a messenger RNA molecule in which is encoded the message necessary to determine the specific amino acid sequence of the protein.

"The cell must synthesize the sub-units (nucleotides) for the RNA (after first synthesizing the sub-units for each nucleotide, which include the individual bases and the ribose). The cell must synthesize the sub-units, or amino acids, which are eventually polymerized to form the protein. Each amino acid must be activated by an enzyme specific for that amino acid. Each amino acid is then combined with another type of RNA, known as soluble RNA or s-RNA.

"There is a specific s-RNA for each individual amino acid. There is yet another type of RNA known as ribosomal RNA. Under the influence of the messenger RNA, the ribosomes are assembled into units known as polyribosomes. Under the direction of the message contained in the messenger RNA while it is in contact with polyribosomes, the amino acid-s-RNA complexes are used to form a protein. Other enzymes and key molecules are required for this." -- Duane Gish.

"During all of this, the complex energy-producing apparatus of the cell is used to furnish the energy required for the many syntheses."—Duane T. Gish, "DNA: Its History and Potential, "in W.E. Lemmerts (ed.), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 312.

========

And where is johnhanks and leibode84 to chime in on this? I guess I can excuse them if you can't get to something that is living, i.e. biological life, after 3 posts .

Thus, I think I can call this a win for creation science and Duane Gish.

I'll look into the synthetic protein, but we know that was designed so that is for the ID camp. It's part of complexity in the ID argument which I'll post later today. I will admit there are some interesting ways they have gone about using bionics with orthotics and prosthetics, and sports.

As for Miller-Urey, I think there's more to this experiment, and I still think Dr. Duane Gish had the last laugh over Dr. Carl Sagan. I want to talk about Sagan and astrophysics, too, at a later time so stay tuned.

I think I showed what the limits Gish was talking during the trial. Also, I showed you how organisms between different classes do not hybridize. A cat does not have sex with a dog no matter how friendly they are to each other. However, one type of horse can mate with a different type of horse and produce

You're getting the hang of doing the Gish Gallop. I'll give you that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A dog isn't going to have sex with a cat. Creatures of a family do not hybridize with creatures of another. Some of it is physically impossible. Plants may be different, but we find that hybridization does not occur. I know people have hybridized marijuana to make a better strain. Others genetically modified the plant in order to produce what they consider a more potent weed. However, this did not happen naturally.

Can you answer that? At what levels do plants of one family hybridize?

What on earth does that have to do with evolution or their question??

It's not drivel. That's why I'm here. You and Quroboros sound intelligent, but you're both not being open-minded. I went with what I was taught in school in biology, chemistry, and other sciences, got good grades at a Division 1 university, made something of myself, blah, blah, blah, and generally ignored creationism until I started to open my mind, eyes, and ears.

And, apparently, since then you have refused to listen to anything anyone on the other side of the debate has to say, you have closed your eyes and ears since then. Like you're ignoring my posts. You certainly are not open-minded if your best response to my arguments is to pretend they don't exist.

I became Christian in 2012. Maybe the first time it hit me was when I realized the eternal universe and steady state theory became pseudoscience. Sure, it was way before 2012, but I hadn't given it much thought. Religion was more social and something for me to do and a place to go and have lunch afterward on Sunday morning. I discovered more and more scientists did not find evolution was correct.

Please name them.

Most science is hypothesis, philosophy, or scientific wild *** guesses (SWAG).

Since you have displayed zero understanding of science in this thread, I very much doubt you can support this assertion. I doubt you have read very much science, let alone "most" of it.

It may use the scientific method to come up with a law, principle, theory, or the rare fact, but most of it is wrong. Didn't they think, at one time, volcanoes from the Deccan Traps caused extinction of dinosaurs?

Congratulations. You've pointed out that science leads to people changing their minds when facts contradict them. Meanwhile, your Bible still says that bats are birds, birds formed before land animals, all humans are descended from a single man and woman and the earth was once entirely flooded. The fact that nobody corrects those mistakes doesn't make your case stronger.

That's why we recognize only a few persons of science today. Many have toiled away at something for nothing, i.e. no pot at the end of the rainbow. The people in science have to talk the talk and walk the walk of evolution (evolutionary thinking) or else they do not get funding.

You are claiming a vast global conspiracy to support evolution. Why, exactly? What possible reason could there be, and what evidence do you have?

To be contrarian could mean they lose their jobs. With the internet and TV, people today who aren't scientists or have a science background do well being science entertainers. They use comedy in order to explain science. Creation scientists are left on their own to make a living for themselves. The Bible isn't a science book, but what I discovered is science ends up backing the Bible.

I already utterly destroyed your "science backs the Bible" argument. What I showed was that you understood neither science nor the Bible.

 

[johnhanks]

A dog isn't going to have sex with a cat. Creatures of a family do not hybridize with creatures of another. Some of it is physically impossible...

... and none of it has anything to do with animal evolution.

Plants may be different, but we find that hybridization does not occur. I know people have hybridized marijuana to make a better strain. Others genetically modified the plant in order to produce what they consider a more potent weed. However, this did not happen naturally.

Can you answer that? At what levels do plants of one family hybridize?

Usually at genus level. Hybridisation is far commoner in plants than in animals. Try googling allopolyploidy.

It's not drivel...

Sadly, it is. Enjoy your life.

 

[james bond]

Haha ... if only it was a photograph.

The existence of many Christian and other religious paintings is evidence of man's reverence towards God. Just today I was reading that the iconic ET movie poster painted by John Alvin is based on Adam's Creation by Michelanglo. Of course, one story is entirely fictional. The painting of Adam and Eve in the Garden is by Austrian painter Wenzel Peter circa 1800s and it hangs in the Vatican. It was purchased by Pope Gregory XVI who was looking to furnish the Room of the Consistory in the Papal State Apartment. It's a work of naturalism by the animalist painter, so it resembles a photograph.

There could be a brachiosaur in-between the trees and mastodon, too.

One particular painting called Jealousy from 1895 is intriguing done by Norwegian expressionist Edvard Munch.

He did do one of Adam and Eve in 1918 which reflects a different tone.

 

[james bond]

What

I'm ignoring because there is no ignore button. If there is, then someone please tell me how to ignore a poster. I refuse to debate anybody who infers that I am a liar. Much better things in life.

 

[james bond]

What on earth does that have to do with evolution or their question??


And, apparently, since then you have refused to listen to anything anyone on the other side of the debate has to say, you have closed your eyes and ears since then. Like you're ignoring my posts. You certainly are not open-minded if your best response to my arguments is to pretend they don't exist.


Please name them.


Since you have displayed zero understanding of science in this thread, I very much doubt you can support this assertion. I doubt you have read very much science, let alone "most" of it.


Congratulations. You've pointed out that science leads to people changing their minds when facts contradict them. Meanwhile, your Bible still says that bats are birds, birds formed before land animals, all humans are descended from a single man and woman and the earth was once entirely flooded. The fact that nobody corrects those mistakes doesn't make your case stronger.


You are claiming a vast global conspiracy to support evolution. Why, exactly? What possible reason could there be, and what evidence do you have?


I already utterly destroyed your "science backs the Bible" argument. What I showed was that you understood neither science nor the Bible.

You're getting the hang of doing the Gish Gallop. I'll give you that.

What about Darwin's Doubts?

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

Isn't that how Descartes determined how he existed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm ignoring because there is no ignore button. If there is, then someone please tell me how to ignore a poster. I refuse to debate anybody who infers that I am a liar. Much better things in life.

Then perhaps you shouldn't lie. Or are you going to insist that everything you've said about the Big Bang theory and the Bible are absolutely true? Because I can prove that several things you have said about both are absolutely false. So the two options are that you're either ignorant of what the Big Bang theory or the Bible say, in which case you have no right to be talking about them anyway, or you are dishonest. So, which is it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What about Darwin's Doubts?

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

What about them? Any scientist worth any credit has reason to doubt their hypothesis being true. And why would that even matter? Darwin died over a hundred years ago, and since then the theory has continued to take shape such that it no longer closely resembles Darwin's initial idea. So why is it even relevant?

Also, it would be really nice if you used at least one source for your arguments that wasn't a biased, creationist website.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What about Darwin's Doubts?

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

Isn't that how Descartes determined how he existed?

I'm familiar with some of them, as he outlined them in, On the Origin of Species.
What about them?

 

[McBell]

What about Darwin's Doubts?

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

Isn't that how Descartes determined how he existed?

What about Darwin's doubts?
You do know that the understanding of evolution has grown tremendously in the 150 years since Darwin's death, right?

 

[james bond]

... and none of it has anything to do with animal evolution.
Usually at genus level. Hybridisation is far commoner in plants than in animals. Try googling allopolyploidy.

Sadly, it is. Enjoy your life.

Lol, I'm explaining baraminology.

Jonathan Sarfati said, "Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind."

Certainly, that's better than listening to a scientist explain how a bird evolved from a dinosaur?

I'm not sad and enjoy life just fine. God provides what I want and need. What provides the evolutionist when they aren't able to meet their wants and needs? We've already seen that one can't have evolutionist as a job.

 

[james bond]

I'm familiar with some of them, as he outlined them in, On the Origin of Species.
What about them?

Darwin said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick." How did the eye originate?

Another would be how did the giraffe come to be?

 

[McBell]

Lol, I'm explaining baraminology.

The problem is you are trying to elevate baraminology to the level of science and it just isn't going to happen outside the choir.
Hells bells, even many choir members flinch at baraminology even being mentioned.

 

[McBell]

Darwin said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick." How did the eye originate?

Another would be how did the giraffe come to be?

If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop relying on old, out dated, thoroughly refuted "arguments".
The fact of the matter is that there has been a huge leap in understanding of evolution (actual evolution, not one of the many strawmen creationists create and call evolution) since Darwin.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Darwin said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick." How did the eye originate?

Another would be how did the giraffe come to be?

This one has been addressed a thousand times over. Right after Darwin says that in his book, he goes on for over three pages explaining how he thinks the eye evolved.

You can read it here:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F401&pageseq=173

But it doesn't really matter at this point what Darwin may have thought, given that we've learned so much more about evolution over the last 150 years than he ever could have dreamed. We have a pretty good idea of the steps involved in the evolution of the eye and we know that they are viable because they all exist in all kinds of organisms living today.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, I'm explaining baraminology.

Jonathan Sarfati said, "Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind."

Okay so, things that can interbreed are the same kind and things that can't interbreed can also be the same kind?

Certainly, that's better than listening to a scientist explain how a bird evolved from a dinosaur?

Nah, I'd much rather listen to a scientist explain how dinosaurs evolved into birds. It's much more interesting.

I'm not sad and enjoy life just fine. God provides what I want and need. What provides the evolutionist when they aren't able to meet their wants and needs?

Can you rephrase the question so that it makes sense?

We've already seen that one can't have evolutionist as a job.

A person can certainly have a job in the field of science that deals with evolution. There's biology, just for starters.

 

[McBell]

The existence of many Christian and other religious paintings is evidence of man's reverence towards God. Just today I was reading that the iconic ET movie poster painted by John Alvin is based on Adam's Creation by Michelanglo. Of course, one story is entirely fictional. The painting of Adam and Eve in the Garden is by Austrian painter Wenzel Peter circa 1800s and it hangs in the Vatican. It was purchased by Pope Gregory XVI who was looking to furnish the Room of the Consistory in the Papal State Apartment. It's a work of naturalism by the animalist painter, so it resembles a photograph.

There could be a brachiosaur in-between the trees and mastodon, too.

One particular painting called Jealousy from 1895 is intriguing done by Norwegian expressionist Edvard Munch.

He did do one of Adam and Eve in 1918 which reflects a different tone.

That is a pretty little speech and all, but how is it evidence for creation?

 

[Shad]

I'm not sad and enjoy life just fine. God provides what I want and need. What provides the evolutionist when they aren't able to meet their wants and needs? We've already seen that one can't have evolutionist as a job.

This only works in a spiritual sense not the material sense. In the material sense you use the same systems everyone else has available but attribute success/results to God while others do not. Many believers in God also accept evolution so your point is moot by the former and later.

Evolutionist isn't a job rather people become biologists specializing in a particular discipline.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Darwin said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick." How did the eye originate?

You're displaying that dishonesty again. Or, at the very least, thoughtlessly trusting the words of biased, creationist websites rather than making any actual effort to research this yourself. Here is the FULL quote (emphasis mine):

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

[SOURCE: https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A Good Atheist Secularist Skeptical Book Collection/Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species - 6th Edition.pdf]

Also, a point that you have bluntly ignored, is that Darwin died over 100 years ago. We now know a lot more then he did, and have a comprehensive understanding of how the eye evolved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Another would be how did the giraffe come to be?

http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm

Have you seriously never bothered to Google these answers for yourself? Do you honestly believe that millions of the world's top biologists never even considered answering these questions?

 

[Ouroboros]

A person can certainly have a job in the field of science that deals with evolution. There's biology, just for starters.

Or biological anthropology, paleontology, also, having knowledge in evolution is becoming more and more important for medical research and horticulture.