Why I believe God Created Life.

[starless]

Let me quote Einstein, may be you can learn something from this quote. It's not your John or Paul, but it's relevant to scientific endeavor:

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”

 

[Bunyip]

I keep getting asked to give names of scientists who reject evolution. This is from a post in another thread, just for you Starless:

"This is a partial list, based on a 5-10 minute Google search. Strange that evolutionists can't seem to find any biologists who reject evolution.
Dr. Davey Loos -.biochemist in Belgium.
Dr. WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG
Dr. PAULA KINCHELOE
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower"

Sure, and that fraction of a percent of scientists who you identify deny evolution for faith reasons - not because they can challenge it scientifically.

I note that not a single one of the scientists you identify has published any research to counter the theory of evolution. Funny that. So sure, there are a tiny few scientists who deny evolution, but almost non of them are even in relevant fields and NOT ONE OF THEM has published a research article challenging any aspectof the theory of evolution.

Because they all deny evolution as a gesture of faith, not because they doubt the science.

If their objections to evolution were scientific - funny how not one of them has ever attempted to publish an article or perform any research to show that.

 

[Bunyip]

Firstly, I did not define macro evolution, as you claim. Quote: "The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur." The horse and donkey are cross-fertile, able to produce offspring. Their offspring the mule usually is sterile.
The fruit flies also can crossbreed, but produce sterile offspring. Same thing.

Sadly, as with creationist apologetics in general you are forced to lie in order to continue your denial.

No, the fruit fly were not cross fertile. There are thousands of different species of fruit fly - thousands of different species that are not cross fertile.

The fruit fly can not cross breed. There are thousands of different 'kinds' of fruit fly. And single species undergoing macro evolution so that they diverge into two species that ARE NO LONGER CROSS FERTILE was the original example you have been pretending not to understand all along.

I repeat: The fruit fly given as an example of macro evolution diverged under direct observation into TWO different species that were NO LONGER CROSS FERTILE. so that 'boundary where fertilisation ceases to occur' (YOUR DEFINITION) was crossed, and was observed to have been crossed.

 

[rusra02]

Sure, and that fraction of a percent of scientists who you identify deny evolution for faith reasons - not because they can challenge it scientifically.

I note that not a single one of the scientists you identify has published any research to counter the theory of evolution. Funny that. So sure, there are a tiny few scientists who deny evolution, but almost non of them are even in relevant fields and NOT ONE OF THEM has published a research article challenging any aspectof the theory of evolution.

Because they all deny evolution as a gesture of faith, not because they doubt the science.

If their objections to evolution were scientific - funny how not one of them has ever attempted to publish an article or perform any research to show that.

Due to time constraints, I checked your assertion that of the scientists listed that reject evolution,"NOT ONE OF THEM has published a research article challenging any aspectof the theory of evolution" with one scientist on the list, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig. Seems you are much mistaken. Lönnig has published more than one research article against evolution theory. Anyone interested in the truth can google the subject.

 

[rusra02]

Sadly, as with creationist apologetics in general you are forced to lie in order to continue your denial.

No, the fruit fly were not cross fertile. There are thousands of different species of fruit fly - thousands of different species that are not cross fertile.

The fruit fly can not cross breed. There are thousands of different 'kinds' of fruit fly. And single species undergoing macro evolution so that they diverge into two species that ARE NO LONGER CROSS FERTILE was the original example you have been pretending not to understand all along.

I repeat: The fruit fly given as an example of macro evolution diverged under direct observation into TWO different species that were NO LONGER CROSS FERTILE. so that 'boundary where fertilisation ceases to occur' (YOUR DEFINITION) was crossed, and was observed to have been crossed.

So, are you saying the fruit flies cannot mate? Or that they can but produce no offspring?

 

[metis]

I am disappointed at how readily evolutionists accept any statement made against anti-evolution sources, without checking the facts for themselves. But not shocked or even surprised.

And you jump to conclusions, as I ran across this from several sources, although not the details, and it's more the scientific sources that were overwhelmingly upset with the movie. My admitting that I didn't see the movie and were not familiar with the details actually were honest statements dealing with my limited knowledge about the movie, but maybe you don't feel that admitting any weakness is that terribly important?

 

[McBell]

Lönnig has published more than one research article against evolution theory. Anyone interested in the truth can google the subject.

How about you do your own homework and provide a link?

Especially given that i am thus far unable to find a peer reviewed publication by Lonnig that refutes, or even attempts to refute evolution.

 

[Bunyip]

Due to time constraints, I checked your assertion that of the scientists listed that reject evolution,"NOT ONE OF THEM has published a research article challenging any aspectof the theory of evolution" with one scientist on the list, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig. Seems you are much mistaken. Lönnig has published more than one research article against evolution theory. Anyone interested in the truth can google the subject.

Can you identify the article please?

I looked up Lonnig, and there is a bit of half bakery on giraffe's and ID, but nothing that challenges any aspect of the theory of evolution.

So please be specific.

Lonnig has published several articles in support of ID, but none that provide any evidence contrary to the ToE. At best he attempts to uncover gaps in our knowledge of the evolution of various genes and proposes the possibility that they may be irreducibly complex - however he has failed so far to establish the irreducible complexity of anything, he merely inserted ID as a hypothetically detectable possible explanation.

 

[Bunyip]

So, are you saying the fruit flies cannot mate? Or that they can but produce no offspring?

YES. And in fact I am saying it to you specifically for about tye fourth time.

There are thousands of different kinds of fruit fly. Assuming you define (as you did) kinds in terms of different forms that are not cross fertile.
There are thousands of kinds of fruit fly.
Flies by the way are an entire order of taxonomy.

The order is diptera, it has over 240 000 species estimated.
Within diptera (flies) there are a number of sub orders - just one of which, Nematocera has 77 different families.

Now fruit flies make up 5 different families, on of which is drusophila.
Drusophila is the genus name, within it are 1500 different species.

Now why do you claim that macro evolution demands that a fly evolve into anything other than a fly, when flies are an entire order? A fly could evolve into a different species, a different genus, a different family and still be within diptera (the flies).

If you define macro evolution at the order of a fly evolving into something other than a fly, that is far beyond the cross fertility barrier you propose, it is an evolutionary transition all the way up to order.
Now just like flies are an entire order, so are primates.

So if you think that a fly evolving into a different genus of fly is not macro-evolution, then I presume you do not think that the evolution of a lemur into a human is macro evolution either, given that they are on the same scale?

Something as closely related as chimps and humans for example would be just a species level transition, but you propose to set the bar at order (lemur to human) is that correct?

 

[rusra02]

YES. And in fact I am saying it to you specifically for about tye fourth time.

Yes, what? Can they mate? If they can, are their offspring always sterile?

 

[rusra02]

How about you do your own homework and provide a link?

Especially given that i am thus far unable to find a peer reviewed publication by Lonnig that refutes, or even attempts to refute evolution.

Wow, first evolutionists could not find a single biologist who doesn't believe in evolution. Then,presented with a list of biologists,they can't find a single research paper from them opposing evolution orthodoxy.
OK, (sigh) "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation "

 

[rusra02]

Like what?

Here are a few: At one time scholars doubted the existence of Assyrian King Sargon, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1. However, in the 1840’s, archaeologists began unearthing the palace of this king. Now, Sargon is one of the best-known Assyrian kings.

Critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered Jesus’ death. (Matthew 27:1, 22-24) But in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate’s name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel.
(Source: w09 5/1)

There are many others: Belshazzar, for one, mentioned by Daniel. Critics claimed the Bible was mistaken, until 1854, when cuneiform tablets with his name were uncovered by archeologists in Ur.

Werner Keller said in the introduction of his book The Bible as History: “In view of the overwhelming mass of authentic and well-attested evidence now available, . . . there kept hammering on my brain this one sentence: ‘The Bible is right after all!’”

 

[Looncall]

Here are a few: At one time scholars doubted the existence of Assyrian King Sargon, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1. However, in the 1840’s, archaeologists began unearthing the palace of this king. Now, Sargon is one of the best-known Assyrian kings.

Critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered Jesus’ death. (Matthew 27:1, 22-24) But in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate’s name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel.
(Source: w09 5/1)

There are many others: Belshazzar, for one, mentioned by Daniel. Critics claimed the Bible was mistaken, until 1854, when cuneiform tablets with his name were uncovered by archeologists in Ur.

Werner Keller said in the introduction of his book The Bible as History: “In view of the overwhelming mass of authentic and well-attested evidence now available, . . . there kept hammering on my brain this one sentence: ‘The Bible is right after all!’”

So what? What else would one expect of a collection of folk histories and campfire tales?

It's like being surprised that Paul Bunyan stories get logging details right.

 

[McBell]

Wow, first evolutionists could not find a single biologist who doesn't believe in evolution.

Are you honestly that lazy or are you just that dishonest?

Then,presented with a list of biologists,they can't find a single research paper from them opposing evolution orthodoxy.

The really sad part is that neither have you...

OK, (sigh) "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation "

seriously?
Have you read that paper?
I would like to think that if you had read it, you would not have wasted our time and killed your credibility by presenting it.

 

[rusra02]

Are you honestly that lazy or are you just that dishonest?


The really sad part is that neither have you...




seriously?
Have you read that paper?
I would like to think that if you had read it, you would not have wasted our time and killed your credibility by presenting it.

So you don't agree with Dr. Lönnig's research. How surprising! Not! Still it is one of dozens of peer-reviewed research papers challenging evolution and/or supporting ID. Those interested can find more here.
This should put to rest the idea that no competent biologists disagree with evolution or that no scientific research has been published against the ToE.

 

[rusra02]

So what? What else would one expect of a collection of folk histories and campfire tales?

It's like being surprised that Paul Bunyan stories get logging details right.

I think a reasoning person can see the difference between the historical facts in the Bible supported by archeology, and Paul Bunyan stories. I am sorry that you cannot.

 

[McBell]

So you don't agree with Dr. Lönnig's research. How surprising! Not! Still it is one of dozens of peer-reviewed research papers challenging evolution and/or supporting ID. Those interested can find more here.
This should put to rest the idea that no competent biologists disagree with evolution or that no scientific research has been published against the ToE.

You really need to look up the phrase "peer-reviewed" and the words "scientific" and "research".

You keep using them words, but you do not seem to know what they mean.

You should also look up statistics so you understand that that less than 1% of a billion is literally "next to nothing".

 

[McBell]

I think a reasoning person can see the difference between the historical facts in the Bible supported by archeology, and Paul Bunyan stories. I am sorry that you cannot.

So you are saying you are not a "reasonable" person?

I have to ask: Is English a second language for you or something?

 

[Looncall]

I think a reasoning person can see the difference between the historical facts in the Bible supported by archeology, and Paul Bunyan stories. I am sorry that you cannot.

You have missed my point.

It should not be surprising if folk histories sometimes, or even usually, describe real events. That is to be expected and does not make them special or of devine origin.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, what? Can they mate? If they can, are their offspring always sterile?

I repeat. No they can not mate, they are not cross fertile and do not produce offspring.