thesometimesaint Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Which only demonstrates that it takes intelligence to create it. Did Laplace create the good ellipses of the planets in our solar system?
danielwoods Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) According to AnswersinGenesis, Evolution happens in the Family Level. "It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances." http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/ That means that AnswersinGenesis believes that the Fox, the Chihuahua, and the wolf share a common ancestor, see "This is especially well illustrated in the dog kind in which current members (e.g., coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs) are confirmed to be descended from an ancestral type of wolf" https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/ So if Evolution happens in the Family Level, it means that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Millions of Years + Many Changes = A Big Change You don't have to believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, but I hope you begin to believe in animal evolution. Yes, I believe that God created life using Evolution. The amount of change between the family level of dogs using your example, compared to the claims of evolutionary theory for all of life. Let's see, if we said that a Chihuahua and Great Dane differed by what, say 10 percent? Then the difference between an Amoeba and an Grey whale is a difference of 98%? Using dogs as an example of evolution is about as explanatory as using a Peppered Moth, it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. Essentially, there is no evidence that leads to the conclusion that all of life was created using the variation observed in our DNA. Rather, the DNA itself is evidence of an engineer at work on a microscopic level. Edited July 26, 2014 by danielwoods 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 26, 2014 Author Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) The amount of change between the family level of dogs using your example, compared to the claims of evolutionary theory for all of life. Let's see, if we said that a Chihuahua and Great Dane differed by what, say 10 percent? The difference is less than 10 percent in DNA, but the Chihuahua and the Great Dane are the same species, your example is on the species level, not the family level. AnswersinGenesis claims that the wolf, the coyote, and domestic dogs share a common ancestor. The Fox also belongs to the same family. So if AnswersinGenesis believes in Evolution on the Family level, that means that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, that is a small change in our DNA, about 1 percent difference. The truth is DNA proves that all life is related. See http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63625-list-of-mormon-biologists-that-believe-in-evolution-from-mormonscholarstestify/ Edited July 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 The amount of change between the family level of dogs using your example, compared to the claims of evolutionary theory for all of life. Let's see, if we said that a Chihuahua and Great Dane differed by what, say 10 percent? Then the difference between an Amoeba and an Grey whale is a difference of 98%? Using dogs as an example of evolution is about as explanatory as using a Peppered Moth, it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. Essentially, there is no evidence that leads to the conclusion that all of life was created using the variation observed in our DNA. Rather, the DNA itself is evidence of an engineer at work on a microscopic level. SEE SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution SEE
danielwoods Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 The difference is less than 10 percent in DNA, but the Chihuahua and the Great Dane are the same species, your example is on the species level, not the family level. AnswersinGenesis claims that the wolf, the coyote, and domestic dogs share a common ancestor. The Fox also belongs to the same family. So if AnswersinGenesis believes in Evolution on the Family level, that means that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, that is a small change in our DNA, about 1 percent difference. The truth is DNA proves that all life is related. See http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63625-list-of-mormon-biologists-that-believe-in-evolution-from-mormonscholarstestify/ The percentage of change of DNA is 1 percent between humans and chimps, however that seeming small difference means the world of difference in real life. Which indicates to me that the argument isn't really a serious one. Your link only indicates that you think that truth in science is based on who has the greater numbers of believers, it doesn't demonstrate what you claimed, that DNA proves all life is related. I do agree that DNA proves all life is related, because it demonstrates that it had to have been engineered by an intelligent source, and we all share that source code.The day that evolutionists demonstrate that a computer can create and program itself from the basic elements of which it's constructed from (self organize?), will be the day they will have actually demonstrated that evolution works as a source of DNA.
Tiki Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 The percentage of elements between a chimp and a human is 0%, and DNA is made up of elements.Hey, you have a great argument!
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 26, 2014 Author Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) The day that evolutionists demonstrate that a computer can create and program itself from the basic elements of which it's constructed from (self organize?), will be the day they will have actually demonstrated that evolution works as a source of DNA. But I am not an atheist, I believe that God used Evolution to create humans and useful animals. Your link only indicates that you think that truth in science is based on who has the greater numbers of believers No, the greater number could be wrong, but it is better to trust what 99.9% of Biologists an Geneticists are saying. DNA evidence can help solve criminal investigations, DNA evidence can tell you who is related to you, DNA evidence proves that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. the church DNA essay tells us that 1. "What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America"2. "The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA" 3. DNA cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, but DNA proved that most ancient Native Americans came from Asia. Therefore, the church thinks that Genetics is a useful science to obtain truth. Edited July 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
danielwoods Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 The percentage of elements between a chimp and a human is 0%, and DNA is made up of elements.Hey, you have a great argument! Right, the difference isn't in the elements themselves, but the immaterial aspect of the DNA and what it produces. But I am not an atheist, I believe that God used Evolution to create humans and useful animals. No, the greater number could be wrong, but it is better to trust what 99.9% of Biologists an Geneticists are saying. DNA evidence can help solve criminal investigations, DNA evidence can tell you who is related to you, DNA evidence proves that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. the church DNA essay tells us that 1. "What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America"2. "The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA" 3. DNA cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, but DNA proved that most ancient Native Americans came from Asia. Therefore, the church thinks that Genetics is a useful science to obtain truth. 99.9% (if that's the number) of Biologists and Geneticists are wrong about evolution in the distant past. Why? Because it's not testable and they aren't actually testing the past! Let's analyze what you stated, which it appears you think are all equal statements: You said, "DNA evidence can help solve criminal investigations, DNA evidence can tell you who is related to you, DNA evidence proves that humans and chimps share a common ancestor." 1) DNA evidence can help solve criminal investigations - True. 2) DNA evidence can tell you who is related to you - True3) DNA evidence proves that humans and chimps share a common ancestor - False All of science is done in the present. IF you make a claim about the distant past, it's not directly testable, nor falsifiable. So, what we do is create theories and collect data to see if that data supports that theory or not. When Darwin was theorizing about the distant past, not much if anything was known about DNA. So, he could make general statements about the past and common ancestors and people would think it sounds like it might be possible. It still didn't "prove" anything, because nothing in the past can be proven since it's not repeatable. Now, however, the data collected indicates that DNA is far more of problem for this theory than a help. That is why the analogies to computers is so applicable. It's really almost laughable to think that a non-intelligent process wrote programs that today we can observe to be far superior to the ones we write for computers. Now, if you wish to argue that God used evolution to create (which is what you stated you believe), then why didn't he say that, instead of stating that he did it in six days?
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 26, 2014 Author Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) All of science is done in the present. IF you make a claim about the distant past, it's not directly testable, nor falsifiable. If you cannot prove the distant past, why do you believe that the Chihuahua and Great Dane share a common ancestor? AnswersinGenesis believes the Chihuahua and the Great Dane share a common ancestor. No modern human has seen the ancestor of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. AnswersinGenesis claims, "land animals like wolves, zebras, sheep, lions, and so on have at least two ancestors that lived on Noah’s ark, only about 4,300 years ago. These animals have undergone many changes since that time...Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms"https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/ "Now, if you wish to argue that God used evolution to create (which is what you stated you believe), then why didn't he say that, instead of stating that he did it in six days?"The scriptures are not Biology textbooks. and your six days claim, the new church seminary Doctrine and Covenants manual says, “The 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation” (p. 280). Edited July 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
danielwoods Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 If you cannot prove the distant past, why do you believe that the Chihuahua and Great Dane share a common ancestor? AnswersinGenesis believes the Chihuahua and the Great Dane share a common ancestor. No modern human has seen the ancestor of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. AnswersinGenesis claims, "land animals like wolves, zebras, sheep, lions, and so on have at least two ancestors that lived on Noah’s ark, only about 4,300 years ago. These animals have undergone many changes since that time...Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms"https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/ "Now, if you wish to argue that God used evolution to create (which is what you stated you believe), then why didn't he say that, instead of stating that he did it in six days?"The scriptures are not Biology textbooks. and your six days claim, the new church seminary Doctrine and Covenants manual says, “The 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation” (p. 280). What I believe, I don't claim I can prove. These are totally different. So, I believe that all dogs had a common ancestor, but that doesn't mean I can prove that. The scriptures speak authoritatively about the past. If God used evolution (and long periods of time) to create, he wouldn't have stated that he did it all in six days. Further, Jesus wouldn't have stated that "In the beginning, he created them Male and Female (referring specifically to Adam and Eve).
longview Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Billions of good minds spend untold trillions of dollars to kill billions of other good minds. When we all will die eventually anyway. BTW Neither the science nor I ever said it happened accidentally. Okay? breaking news . . . a university professor fired for publishing findings of soft tissue in a large triceratops horn . . . http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/07/26/professor-fired-reporting-soft-tissue-triceratops-horn/
Calm Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 "and your six days claim, the new church seminary Doctrine and Covenants manual says, “The 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation” (p. 280)."Not sure why you think an LDS church manual would be helpful in this conversation with Daniel. He would hardly see it as authoritative. 1
Calm Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 A more informative link:http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/ 1
ERayR Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 breaking news . . . a university professor fired for publishing findings of soft tissue in a large triceratops horn . . . http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/07/26/professor-fired-reporting-soft-tissue-triceratops-horn/ Good find but MFT will reject as it isn't from an approved source. Remember you saw it here first. 1
ERayR Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 "and your six days claim, the new church seminary Doctrine and Covenants manual says, “The 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation” (p. 280)."Not sure why you think an LDS church manual would be helpful in this conversation with Daniel. He would hardly see it as authoritative. It is one of MFT's approved sources.
Calm Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 " No modern human has seen the ancestor of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. "To creationists....are there any baramins (if that is the right term) that survive in the present? If not, why not? It would appear at least for humans it has, right?
danielwoods Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 breaking news . . . a university professor fired for publishing findings of soft tissue in a large triceratops horn . . . http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/07/26/professor-fired-reporting-soft-tissue-triceratops-horn/ Wow.
Calm Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 I will be interested to hear the university side of things....for example, does the professor refuse to teach his students other possible explanations for the soft tissue that are currently being explored or does he insist his explanation is the only valid one?
danielwoods Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 " No modern human has seen the ancestor of the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. "To creationists....are there any baramins (if that is the right term) that survive in the present? If not, why not? It would appear at least for humans it has, right? "Baraminologists have made a lot of progress, but we still have a long way to go.3 We have identified only a handful of created kinds out of thousands that are expected to exist.4 We hope that future research in this area will identify more of the created kinds and new ways of recognizing and verifying their identity." https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/bara-what/
danielwoods Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 I will be interested to hear the university side of things....for example, does the professor refuse to teach his students other possible explanations for the soft tissue that are currently being explored or does he insist his explanation is the only valid one? At the end of that article you linked it said that Iron preserved it? "The discovery is the latest in several recent – and controversial – soft tissue finds by archaeologists: researchers last November claimed the controversial discovery of purported 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex can be explained by iron in the dinosaur’s body, which they say preserved the tissue before it could decay." Curious to know how they know that?
thesometimesaint Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) Unknown. What is clear is that in context all of the references to the flood of Noah was global. In fact the words used in Hebrew are different for the type of flood that happened, than a normal local flood. Actually that is what is claimed in the Bible. The word earth/land/world are not all that different in Hebrew. Edited July 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 breaking news . . . a university professor fired for publishing findings of soft tissue in a large triceratops horn . . . http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/07/26/professor-fired-reporting-soft-tissue-triceratops-horn/ Incorrect. The individual in question was never a professor at CSU but a technician. The information was already published in peer review literature. It was the injection of a few thousand year old dinosaur, the imposition of a fundamentalist Christan belief, that is the problem.
danielwoods Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Incorrect. The individual in question was never a professor at CSU but a technician. The information was already published in peer review literature. It was the injection of a few thousand year old dinosaur, the imposition of a fundamentalist Christan belief, that is the problem. The guy who was fired is the same guy who published it in peer review literature: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) breaking news . . . a university professor fired for publishing findings of soft tissue in a large triceratops horn . . . http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/07/26/professor-fired-reporting-soft-tissue-triceratops-horn/ Tea Party? "Ron Paul's original staff economist"? That is politics, I request that your post gets deleted. No politics. Please link to a nonpartisan news article. According to some news reports, he was fired for his religious beliefs, not for his evidence. How come you guys are never skeptical about news reports and alleged evidence that support your opinions? Don't jump to conclusions too quickly, wait for the court. Edited July 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) What I believe, I don't claim I can prove. These are totally different. It is possible to prove the distant past according to the Church the church DNA essay tells us that1. "What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America"2. "The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA"3. DNA cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, but DNA proved that most ancient Native Americans came from Asia. The reason why AnsweresinGenesis believes that the Chihuahua and Great Dane share a common ancestor is because of the evidence. DNA evidence proves that life is related (life in the present). If we cannot prove the distant past, does that mean that fossils don't prove that dinosaurs were once alive? Nobody has seen a living T-Rex. In philosophy we cannot prove anything, but we should follow the best scientific evidence. Edited July 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Recommended Posts