Why I believe God Created Life.

[metis]

To call the ToE "a failing theory" is just so bizarre and devoid of any reality. The genome testing is very much verifying what we have known for a rather long time, namely that all life has evolved and undoubtedly continues to evolve.

 

[starless]

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

I do not think it necessary to highlight portions of this quote. If someone reads it carefully, they will see that research has confirmed what evolution denies. I believe evolutionists try to make the facts fit their theory instead of changing (or discarding) their theory to fit the facts.

Again, you are thoroughly misinformed and misguided.

Did you even care to read up on the quote by Eric Bapteste and Michael Rose in context? At no point do they deny that evolution is a fact or that the tree of life is an illustration to that fact.

They challenge the way the tree of life is simplified, as sketched by Darwin 150 years go. They claim genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled tree of life, different from the one we have now.

I have no idea how you can read an article, ignore the gist of it, skip over 95% of the text and then pick out a few quotes out of context that might support your outlandish claims. Well done.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Again, you are thoroughly misinformed and misguided.

Did you even care to read up on the quote by Eric Bapteste and Michael Rose in context? At no point do they deny that evolution is a fact or that the tree of life is an illustration to that fact.

They challenge the way the tree of life is simplified, as sketched by Darwin 150 years go. They claim genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled tree of life, different from the one we have now.

I have no idea how you can read an article, ignore the gist of it, skip over 95% of the text and then pick out a few quotes out of context that might support your outlandish claims. Well done.

If that shocks you at all, you better add a seat belt to that computer chair of yours, you're in for quite a ride!
And welcome!

 

[Parsimony]

I have no idea how you can read an article, ignore the gist of it, skip over 95% of the text and then pick out a few quotes out of context that might support your outlandish claims. Well done.

It even has a name: quote mining

 

[work in progress]

I think this post is a good example of the bluster used by evolutionists to try to bolster their failing theory. Here is a quote from "The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking": "What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

I do not think it necessary to highlight portions of this quote. If someone reads it carefully, they will see that research has confirmed what evolution denies. I believe evolutionists try to make the facts fit their theory instead of changing (or discarding) their theory to fit the facts.

I've already mentioned more than a few times already, that if you intend to defend creationism, you need to present a creationist theory that explains scientific evidence...such as a fossil record in the rocks that matches your or any other creation account, or genetic facts that can only be explained by animals being unrelated to each other and created separately in the past. In other words, quoting or maybe - misquoting one more scientist who criticizes Darwin without providing the full context of this quote for a Malcolm S. Gordon, doesn't qualify as proof of creation!

While searching for exactly who Gordon is and where and in what context do these quotes appear in his actual work, I found this at a Mediafire link:

Weighed and Found Wanting
A critical analysis of The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking and Was Life Created?
p.22-23:
.....................................
Confusion breaks out at soon as TOL (The Origin of Life) starts
quoting Malcolm S. Gordon and an infamous
New Scientist issue titled \Darwin Was Wrong".
Dr. Gordon is correct when explaining that the
tree of life (phylogeny) may have various \roots"
and not a single starting point. Ancient single-celled
organisms swapped genetic information
through a process called horizontal gene transfer.
Evolved features and mechanisms could be
traded back and forth leading to radically new
types of life. This chaotic environment is not
amenable to a simple tree. Instead, a modified
tree would feature branches splitting off, curling
and recombining in strange ways.
This phenomenon was unknown to Darwin, so
his simpler conception of phylogeny needs refinement.
This is to be expected, being that he lived
150 years ago. Modern biology owes its foundations
to Darwin, but in a way, evolution is not
really \Darwin's theory" anymore. His key insights
remain, but they have been radically improved
and supplemented. Science is not a dogmatic
collection of immutable statements made
by unassailable saints. It does not matter that
Darwin was incorrect about many things, as science
is not tied to any individual.

Dr. Gordon's other comments should be
placed in context by noting that the title of the
published work in which his statements appear
is The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Es-
say. This publication is a speculative work addressing
emerging concepts in the complicated
world of biological classication called cladistics.
Comments involving the reality of categories like
kingdom or phylum are intimately related to inquiries
into the ancient history of single-celled
organisms. This work does not challenge the fact
that modern species are related by common ancestors.
The deceptive use of the New Scientist issue
proclaiming \DarwinWasWrong" falls along the
same lines. While the publishers of TOL try to
avoid charges of dishonest quote mining with a
footnote, they are still guilty. It is true that advanced
computational tools are opening up new
possibilities for analyzing the genomes of organisms.
The results of this work are leading scientists
to revise old models, adding detail and
nuance. All of this research only further solidifies
the theory of evolution.

The editors of New Scientist, while perhaps
too quick to publish sensational cover statements,
were fully aware that their work would
be misappropriated by creationists in exactly the
fashion that TOL does. It it best to quote directly
from the magazine itself:
\None of this should give succour
to creationists, whose blinkered universe
is doubtless already buzzing with
the news that `New Scientist has announced
Darwin was wrong'. Expect
to find excerpts ripped out of context
and presented as evidence that biologists
are deserting the theory of evolution
en masse. They are not." [15]

 

[rusra02]

To call the ToE "a failing theory" is just so bizarre and devoid of any reality. The genome testing is very much verifying what we have known for a rather long time, namely that all life has evolved and undoubtedly continues to evolve.

I noticed you did not use the past tense "has verified."
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” (Michael Behe)

"I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened.... If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact." (Byron Leon Meadows)

 

[rusra02]

Again, you are thoroughly misinformed and misguided.

Did you even care to read up on the quote by Eric Bapteste and Michael Rose in context? At no point do they deny that evolution is a fact or that the tree of life is an illustration to that fact.

They challenge the way the tree of life is simplified, as sketched by Darwin 150 years go. They claim genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled tree of life, different from the one we have now.

I have no idea how you can read an article, ignore the gist of it, skip over 95% of the text and then pick out a few quotes out of context that might support your outlandish claims. Well done.

The fact that these men are evolutionists does not change what they wrote. Nor were the quotes out of context, as you claim.

 

[rusra02]

It even has a name: quote mining

Ah, the evolutionist's refrain. If you cannot attack the message, go for the messenger, or claim they are quote-mining. Only a bankrupt theory requires such tactics.

 

[starless]

The fact that these men are evolutionists does not change what they wrote. Nor were the quotes out of context, as you claim.

Amazing. I don't know if you are dishonest on purpose, ignorant, or both.

Actually, I am going to refrain from posting in this thread from now on. It's pointless; like trying to argue and elicit a response from a brick wall.

 

[metis]

I noticed you did not use the past tense "has verified."
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” (Michael Behe)

"I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened.... If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact." (Byron Leon Meadows)

First of all, the idea that all life originated from a single source is only one hypothesis and has never been assumed as a fact. Secondly, to quote Behe as being some sort of expert on evolution is a lot like quoting Hitler on how to be compassionate towards others. Also, he is clearly wrong as there has been articles on various hypotheses as to how this could have happened, and there's been a lot of testing in this area, some of which I've seen reported in "Scientific American".

 

[viole]

"I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened.... If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact." (Byron Leon Meadows)

This a non-sequitur, I am afraid. Theories are not facts, they try to explain facts.

Take gravity for instance. People are still arguing about gravity. Before Einstein nobody really, including Newton, knew how it is working.

Now they argue about integrating it with quantum mechanics: superstring theory, quantum gravity, ....,you name it.

But all those discussions do not take a iota out of the fact that gravity is a fact, as anyone who fell on his nose can attest.

That is what scientists do, usually; they try to understand the inner mechanisms of facts, including gravity and evolution.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

This a non-sequitur, I am afraid. Theories are not facts, they try to explain facts.

Take gravity for instance. People are still arguing about gravity. Before Einstein nobody really, including Newton, knew how it is working.

Now they argue about integrating it with quantum mechanics: superstring theory, quantum gravity, ....,you name it.

But all those discussions do not take a iota out of the fact that gravity is a fact, as anyone who fell on his nose can attest.

That is what scientists do, usually; they try to understand the inner mechanisms of facts, including gravity and evolution.

Ciao

- viole

Gravity is demonstrable fact, macroevolution, not so much.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ah, the evolutionist's refrain. If you cannot attack the message, go for the messenger, or claim they are quote-mining. Only a bankrupt theory requires such tactics.

You are quote mining and many (if not most) of them are misleading and/or taken out of context. I do believe someone on this very thread actually demonstrated to you how dishonest it is. Only a bankrupt hypothesis requires such dishonest tactics.

Besides, individual quotes from random people mean next to nothing. The evidence is the important part of the discussion. And all the evidence leads to the conclusion that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that we observe.

 

[Ouroboros]

Gravity is demonstrable fact, macroevolution, not so much.

Only if you're using a strategically elastic definition of macroevolution to serve a religious agenda.

Misuse of the term macroevolution by anti-evolutionists:
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bunyip]

Gravity is demonstrable fact, macroevolution, not so much.

Macroevolution is a demonstrable fact. Macroevolution was demonstrated mpre than a century ago.

Sadly creationists just deny this simple fact by playing a rather silly and transparent little deception in which they just pretend not to understand what 'macroevolution' means and falsely claim that macroevolution means some sort of impossible transition (such as a dog 'turning into' a non-dog) instead of what macroevolution really means - which is speciation, such as when one species of dog becomes two species of dog.

In practice it goes basically like this (and is repeated like a broken record decade after decade);

Creationist: Macroevolution has never been demonstrated!

Biologist: Yes it has. It was first demonstrated generations ago.

Creationist: Prove it! Give me an example?

Biologist: Well sure. Here are a dozen good examples - look at this one, a species of drusophila fruit fly was observed to undergo macroevolution (speciation).

Creationist: But it is still a fruit fly! It didn't turn into a different kind. I need an example like when a whale turns into a bat!

Biologist: Buddy macroevolution means a transition at or above the level of species, not a whale turning into a bat - that would be evidence of magic, not macroevolution. Macro is when a species of fly becomes 2 species of fly.

Creationist: I don't care what you call it, but what I mean is when one kind becomes another.

And so on in a little circle goes the endless groundhog day of creationism.

 

[rusra02]

You are quote mining and many (if not most) of them are misleading and/or taken out of context. I do believe someone on this very thread actually demonstrated to you how dishonest it is. Only a bankrupt hypothesis requires such dishonest tactics.

Besides, individual quotes from random people mean next to nothing. The evidence is the important part of the discussion. And all the evidence leads to the conclusion that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that we observe.

I believe it has always been evolutionist tactics to make personal attacks on those who reject the ToE. Heaven forbid that someone publicly exposes the fallacies that fill the theory, much less that someone would quote such honest remarks and make them more widely known. Such personal attacks have been documented online for those interested in the truth.
As to the evidence, the evidence for creation is overwhelming, IMO. For example, biochemist and professor Michael Behe stated:"Science has now advanced enough to have uncovered the foundation level of life. And much to our surprise, scientists have found functional, complex machinery at the molecular level of life. For instance, within living cells there are little molecular “trucks” that carry supplies from one side of the cell to the other. There are tiny molecular “sign posts” that tell these “trucks” to turn left or right. Some cells have molecular “outboard motors” that propel the cells through liquid. In any other context, when such functional complexity is evident, people would conclude that these things were designed. We have no other explanation for this complexity, claims of Darwinian evolution notwithstanding. Since it’s been our uniform experience that this sort of arrangement bespeaks design, we are justified in thinking that these molecular systems were also intelligently designed."
Similar evidence refutes the claimed machinery of evolution, such as mutations and so-called natural selection, could produce the stunning variety of designs evident in living things. Bluster and personal attacks seem to be all that remain to support this failing theory of evolution.

 

[rusra02]

Macroevolution is a demonstrable fact. Macroevolution was demonstrated mpre than a century ago.

Sadly creationists just deny this simple fact by playing a rather silly and transparent little deception in which they just pretend not to understand what 'macroevolution' means and falsely claim that macroevolution means some sort of impossible transition (such as a dog 'turning into' a non-dog) instead of what macroevolution really means - which is speciation, such as when one species of dog becomes two species of dog.

In practice it goes basically like this (and is repeated like a broken record decade after decade);

Creationist: Macroevolution has never been demonstrated!

Biologist: Yes it has. It was first demonstrated generations ago.

Creationist: Prove it! Give me an example?

Biologist: Well sure. Here are a dozen good examples - look at this one, a species of drusophila fruit fly was observed to undergo macroevolution (speciation).

Creationist: But it is still a fruit fly! It didn't turn into a different kind. I need an example like when a whale turns into a bat!

Biologist: Buddy macroevolution means a transition at or above the level of species, not a whale turning into a bat - that would be evidence of magic, not macroevolution. Macro is when a species of fly becomes 2 species of fly.

Creationist: I don't care what you call it, but what I mean is when one kind becomes another.

And so on in a little circle goes the endless groundhog day of creationism.

Silly people who cannot see that a fruit fly changing into a fruit fly is not macroevolution.

 

[metis]

Macroevolution is a demonstrable fact. Macroevolution was demonstrated mpre than a century ago.

Sadly creationists just deny this simple fact by playing a rather silly and transparent little deception in which they just pretend not to understand what 'macroevolution' means and falsely claim that macroevolution means some sort of impossible transition (such as a dog 'turning into' a non-dog) instead of what macroevolution really means - which is speciation, such as when one species of dog becomes two species of dog.

In practice it goes basically like this (and is repeated like a broken record decade after decade);

Creationist: Macroevolution has never been demonstrated!

Biologist: Yes it has. It was first demonstrated generations ago.

Creationist: Prove it! Give me an example?

Biologist: Well sure. Here are a dozen good examples - look at this one, a species of drusophila fruit fly was observed to undergo macroevolution (speciation).

Creationist: But it is still a fruit fly! It didn't turn into a different kind. I need an example like when a whale turns into a bat!

Biologist: Buddy macroevolution means a transition at or above the level of species, not a whale turning into a bat - that would be evidence of magic, not macroevolution. Macro is when a species of fly becomes 2 species of fly.

Creationist: I don't care what you call it, but what I mean is when one kind becomes another.

And so on in a little circle goes the endless groundhog day of creationism.

So true and well said-- and the proof of the fact that you're right on target is rusra's post in response to the above.

The truly unfortunate reality is that when they deny what the evidence clearly shows, they cheapen their own religion as being one based on medieval superstition devoid of reality. The Brits call these people "nutters", and I think one can see why they tend to feel that way, although I frankly don't like or approve of such name-calling.

Instead, a far better approach would be for them to accept Truth and not feel some sort of obligation to deny reality. Evolution in no way contradicts the concept that God created all, plus the creation accounts, based on what we now know both in terms of science and religious history, can more be interpreted as allegory, which was a very traditional Jewish writing style. By insisting that only a literal interpretation is correct, they ignore our traditional cultural approach, plus what we now know about the spread of certain oral and written traditions.

 

[starless]

plus the creation accounts, based on what we now know both in terms of science and religious history, can more be interpreted as allegory

The problem with this approach is purposefully picking and choosing texts from the BIble, usually ones that sound ludicrous and embarrassing nowadays, and classifying them as "an allegory." These passages are always the ones that have been rebutted by science in the past 200 years, aren't they?

If the creation texts should be seen as "an allegory", why shouldn't we interpret the rest of the holy books as allegory as well? More or less this is what happened to earlier religions, like the Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs. Otherwise, it's just too convenient.

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem with this approach is purposefully picking and choosing texts from the BIble, usually ones that sound ludicrous and embarrassing nowadays, and classifying them as "an allegory." These passages are always the ones that have been rebutted by science in the past 200 years, aren't they?

If the creation texts should be seen as "an allegory", why shouldn't we interpret the rest of the holy books as allegory as well? More or less this is what happened to earlier religions, like the Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs. Otherwise, it's just too convenient.

And I don't see a problem with that.

Allegories tell a story, even if the story isn't some actual historical story. Allegories have the purpose to tell truths through the story. As an example, when you take math class, you will be presented with stories like "Bob and Steve had one bike. Bob walked to the store, and Steve took the bike, but he started one hour after Bob. ... blah blah..." The purpose of doing that is to put you, as a reader, into a situation where you have to solve something. The story is the carrier of the information. There never was Steve or Bob going to the store, or maybe there was, but that's no important. What's important is to know that Bob got there first anyway because the bike broke down...

As humans, we think and process knowledge and information in illustrations and images. We even have a whole multibillion dollar industry around it... TV, movies, shows, books, audiobooks, ... It's all about the stories and what they do to us and what they mean.