Gray Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: No, but there is this monster Gator on a Florida gold course. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXn1g0xtUMk .
BCSpace Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 13 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Perhaps not, but it does raise all kinds of theological issues and concerns. Concerns that if carried through to logical conclusions may actually make the gospel pretty pointless. I disagree. To me, Evolution fits in quite neatly and answers many unanswered questions and enhances the Gospel while raising almost no questions itself once one understands how it fits. Local vs global Flood seems to be the only possible point of contention in my view.
Storm Rider Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Storm Rider, I'm confused. You continue to challenge my confidence in the assertions I make instead of challenging my assertions. Why? It's not my fault that we are evolved animals. It's not my fault that evolution is true. Evolution happened and is happening and will continue to take place long after you and I are gone. It is THE foundation upon which all human understanding of biology is built upon. It is not built on faith or feeling or desire...it is built on tangible evidence, fact, observation and testable science. It is true. Sorry if that truth is disturbing to you or my confidence in it. I have explained this before and I don't see a further need to focus any further on the topic because it is personal to you. I have already done too little addressing topics rather than personal idiosyncrasies. Let's move on.
snowflake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 17 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: A fossil alone does not prove evolution...but combined with Environmental Pressers, Variation, Natural Selection and Reproduction...Evolution is a fact Johnnie Cake, These are not the driving factors in evolution, genetic mutations are the primary driving force. Natural selection is no longer considered the primary driving force. Like animals always reproduce the same kind. Humans have been popping out humans for thousands of years, never has anyone observed a human give birth to a non-human, or a dog to a non-dog. Of course there are variations, that is observable. Can you show me where I am wrong on this? With extreme environmental pressure you can do the same thing to animals, I did it in university with fruit flies, selective breeding and environmental pressure can produce red eyes, black eyes, curly wings, tiny wings big legs, tiny legs, they were always fruit flies and the ones with the most dramatic changes were not adapted to real life once taken out of the laboratory. The flies were never genetically mutated (the driving force behind evolution). The simple fact is that you cannot observe evolution and it therefore is not science. Now you can believe it happened all you want, but that is religion.
stemelbow Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: LOL...no it wasn't me 🤓 It wasn't. I'm guessing it was before you were there.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 21, 2016 Author Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, snowflake said: Johnnie Cake, These are not the driving factors in evolution, genetic mutations are the primary driving force. Natural selection is no longer considered the primary driving force. Like animals always reproduce the same kind. Humans have been popping out humans for thousands of years, never has anyone observed a human give birth to a non-human, or a dog to a non-dog. Of course there are variations, that is observable. Can you show me where I am wrong on this? With extreme environmental pressure you can do the same thing to animals, I did it in university with fruit flies, selective breeding and environmental pressure can produce red eyes, black eyes, curly wings, tiny wings big legs, tiny legs, they were always fruit flies and the ones with the most dramatic changes were not adapted to real life once taken out of the laboratory. The flies were never genetically mutated (the driving force behind evolution). The simple fact is that you cannot observe evolution and it therefore is not science. Now you can believe it happened all you want, but that is religion. Thanks for your comment...While not a biologist I am educated and have studied evolution extensively (primarily because prior to the loss of my belief in Mormonism, I did NOT believe in it...I was dragged kicking and screaming to an eventual acceptance) It was through study that I came to accept this uncomfortable reality, that we are evolved animals...love it or hate it...that's just reality. Genetic Mutation is a sub category of Variation, along with Meiosis. And the term Natural Selection is generally used to refer to a species ability to produce viable offspring capable to reproduce and pass along the genes of their parents. But more specific to your point. The one missing element and perhaps the most critical for evolution to be observed is the passage of time. Darwin actualy delayed publishing his theory because at the time he couldn't demonstrate that the earth was older than 6,000 years per the prevailing belief of that time period....and his evolution theory required TIME...huge amounts of it for the mutations and other elements required for evolution to take place. Once science caught up and it was demonstrated that the earth was infact an old planet...the science supported and propelled Darwin's theory. So you and I are very unlikely to ever witness evolution in our life time...but that does not mean that it is not actually taking place at this very instant. The simple fact is that you can observe the consequences of evolution and you dismiss it at the risk of ignorance. Humans and Chimpanzees share 98.5% DNA, but that's not all...As an example of observable mutation and common ancestry, buried deep with in that DNA we share common virus mutations in our collective chromosomes. In our collective 10th Chromosomes both humans and Chimpanzees share a unique common sequence marker called an Endogenous Retro Virus or ERV which stores its unique genetic information in its RNA not its DNA (following me?) through a process known as reverse transcription, upon infecting its host the virus converts its RNA into DNA and randomly inserts it into the host Chromosome....which is then past on to its posterity. So guess what...both humans and chimpanzees share this same exact randomly placed virus mutation in the same exact chromosome sequence location. What are the odds? Well the odds have been calculated at 1 in 3,000,000,000 But it gets better, There is not 1 of these mutations being in the same exact location in both humans and chimpanzees there are several...each with the same exact mutation in the same exact sequence that can only be passed on by a common ancestor...the odds of this happening randomly is 1 in 2,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 <--- yes that is the exact odds. But wait it gets even better...that's the odds with only 5 of these RNA mutations being taken into account each being randomly placed in the same exact location in both of our collective chromosomes... and there are 16 of these mutations in the same exact locations spread throughout our collective chromosomes. The odds of this happening randomly are so remote that the word ZERO doesn't come close. But wait it get even better...that's just calculating the odds with the 16 "K class" retro virus's. There are over 98,000 Common ERV's . This could ONLY occur if we had a common ancestor Edited July 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
snowflake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 18 hours ago, Gray said: How does a skeleton in the dirt prove that living dinosaurs existed? All it proves is that that bone-shaped rocks exist within other rocks. We don't know how they got there - we weren't there to observe what happened! This is all very faith based stuff. How do you know that sedimentary rock is laid down by water? Were you there to observe the process? We understand very well how fossils are created, we can make them in the laboratory, we see (observe) it happen in real life on riverbanks and deltas (sedimentary layers being layed down) and at Mt.St.Helens. We can take a dead animal, cover it, compress it without oxygen and not a lot of time required, a fossil. Observable, testable, reproducible....that is science. We dig up a fossil and say ok, this existed in the past, what else is in that layer of rock or dirt, what kind of dirt or rock, where was it found etc. all observable things. To say that the individual was a product of evolution, or reproduced or is the product of something that is unobservable is faith. You can't say this animal was green with pink stripes, had 5 children and their great great great great grandpa was a bacteria, pure speculation.
Gray Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, snowflake said: We understand very well how fossils are created, we can make them in the laboratory, we see (observe) it happen in real life on riverbanks and deltas (sedimentary layers being layed down) and at Mt.St.Helens. CFR that fossils can be created in the lab. We see sedimentary layers being laid down, but that doesn't mean they are going to form sedimentary rock millions of years in the future. This is just your faith again. Quote We can take a dead animal, cover it, compress it without oxygen and not a lot of time required, a fossil. Observable, testable, reproducible....that is science. CFR please Quote We dig up a fossil and say ok, this existed in the past, what else is in that layer of rock or dirt, what kind of dirt or rock, where was it found etc. all observable things. Did you observe the animal dying? How do you know that the fossil came from a living animal. You don't. This is just more faith based stuff. You have no evidence. Quote To say that the individual was a product of evolution, or reproduced or is the product of something that is unobservable is faith. You can't say this animal was green with pink stripes, had 5 children and their great great great great grandpa was a bacteria, pure speculation. Right, just like the unobservable faith-based idea that the Tyrannosaurus Rex ever existed as a living animal. Edited July 21, 2016 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 18 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Evolution as an occurrence is a fact. Evolution as an origin theory may not be. SEE
thesometimesaint Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 18 hours ago, waveslider said: So what's it called if you have to take God out of it to make science work? Especially if you have had very real answers that God does indeed exist. I don't mind following true religion. I would rather do that than trust in the imperfect teachings of man, who don't know anywhere near all the facts to begin with. That is a "No True Scotsman" argument. Prove your hypothesis. No one has said we have all the facts. That is what makes science tentative. As new facts come along our understanding changes.
Darren10 Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 20 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: A fossil alone does not prove evolution...but combined with Environmental Pressers, Variation, Natural Selection and Reproduction...Evolution is a fact Sir, no science is a "fact". They are, instead, conclusions. Presenting science as "fact" is the most unscientific thing you can do to science.
snowflake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Thanks for your comment...While not a biologist I am educated and have studied evolution extensively (primarily because prior to the loss of my belief in Mormonism, I did NOT believe in it...I was dragged kicking and screaming to an eventual acceptance) It was through study that I came to accept this uncomfortable reality, that we are evolved animals...love it or hate it...that's just reality. Genetic Mutation is a sub category of Variation, along with Meiosis. And the term Natural Selection is generally used to refer to a species ability to produce viable offspring capable to reproduce and pass along the genes of their parents. But more specific to your point. The one missing element and perhaps the most critical for evolution to be observed is the passage of time. Darwin actualy delayed publishing his theory because at the time he couldn't demonstrate that the earth was older than 6,000 years per the prevailing belief of that time period....and his evolution theory required TIME...huge amounts of it for the mutations and other elements required for evolution to take place. Once science caught up and it was demonstrated that the earth was infact an old planet...the science supported and propelled Darwin's theory. So you and I are very unlikely to ever witness evolution in our life time...but that does not mean that it is not actually taking place at this very instant. The simple fact is that you can observe the consequences of evolution and you dismiss it at the risk of ignorance. Humans and Chimpanzees share 98.5% DNA, but that's not all...As an example of observable mutation and common ancestry, buried deep with in that DNA we share common virus mutations in our collective chromosomes. In our collective 10th Chromosomes both humans and Chimpanzees share a unique common sequence marker called an Endogenous Retro Virus or ERV which stores its unique genetic information in its RNA not its DNA (following me?) through a process known as reverse transcription, upon infecting its host the virus converts its RNA into DNA and randomly inserts it into the host Chromosome....which is then past on to its posterity. So guess what...both humans and chimpanzees share this same exact randomly placed virus mutation in the same exact chromosome sequence location. What are the odds? Well the odds have been calculated at 1 in 3,000,000,000 But it gets better, There is not 1 of these mutations being in the same exact location in both humans and chimpanzees there are several...each with the same exact mutation in the same exact sequence that can only be passed on by a common ancestor...the odds of this happening randomly is 1 in 2,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 <--- yes that is the exact odds. But wait it gets even better...that's the odds with only 5 of these RNA mutations being taken into account each being randomly placed in the same exact location in both of our collective chromosomes... and there are 16 of these mutations in the same exact locations spread throughout our collective chromosomes. The odds of this happening randomly are so remote that the word ZERO doesn't come close. But wait it get even better...that's just calculating the odds with the 16 "K class" retro virus's. There are over 98,000 Common ERV's . This could ONLY occur if we had a common ancestor The numbers you quote above are very similar to the calculations made for abiogenesis happening,....it's impossible, there has to be a designer for this to happen. Evolutionists will sidestep this problem by saying something along the line of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. It seems so obvious that a designer would use a similar code for designing all his creations, DNA and that this could only occur if we had a common designer. Listen, Johnnie Cake, I have no problem calling Christianity a religion, why is it so difficult for you to do the same? You admit that it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, it cannot be duplicated, documented, observed, quantified, or measured, they can't even come up with an equation to explain it, it's all faith!
thesometimesaint Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 3 hours ago, snowflake said: Johnnie Cake, These are not the driving factors in evolution, genetic mutations are the primary driving force. Natural selection is no longer considered the primary driving force. Like animals always reproduce the same kind. Humans have been popping out humans for thousands of years, never has anyone observed a human give birth to a non-human, or a dog to a non-dog. Of course there are variations, that is observable. Can you show me where I am wrong on this? With extreme environmental pressure you can do the same thing to animals, I did it in university with fruit flies, selective breeding and environmental pressure can produce red eyes, black eyes, curly wings, tiny wings big legs, tiny legs, they were always fruit flies and the ones with the most dramatic changes were not adapted to real life once taken out of the laboratory. The flies were never genetically mutated (the driving force behind evolution). The simple fact is that you cannot observe evolution and it therefore is not science. Now you can believe it happened all you want, but that is religion. You clear don't know what the heck you're talking about.
thesometimesaint Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, snowflake said: The numbers you quote above are very similar to the calculations made for abiogenesis happening,....it's impossible, there has to be a designer for this to happen. Evolutionists will sidestep this problem by saying something along the line of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. It seems so obvious that a designer would use a similar code for designing all his creations, DNA and that this could only occur if we had a common designer. Listen, Johnnie Cake, I have no problem calling Christianity a religion, why is it so difficult for you to do the same? You admit that it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, it cannot be duplicated, documented, observed, quantified, or measured, they can't even come up with an equation to explain it, it's all faith! The chemistry of abiogenesis works whether you believe in one or more Gods or not. DNA works whether you believe in one or more Gods or not. Christianity is one of many religions. Evolution doesn't take millions of years. It totally depends on the species involved. Some take just a few months to form a new species. Humans live about 15 years to sexual maturity. So it took us much longer to evolve into a species. Our genetic code has been reasonably stable for the last 250,000-500,000 years. Edited July 21, 2016 by thesometimesaint
Johnnie Cake Posted July 21, 2016 Author Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 40 minutes ago, snowflake said: The numbers you quote above are very similar to the calculations made for abiogenesis happening,....it's impossible, there has to be a designer for this to happen. Evolutionists will sidestep this problem by saying something along the line of abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. It seems so obvious that a designer would use a similar code for designing all his creations, DNA and that this could only occur if we had a common designer. Listen, Johnnie Cake, I have no problem calling Christianity a religion, why is it so difficult for you to do the same? You admit that it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, it cannot be duplicated, documented, observed, quantified, or measured, they can't even come up with an equation to explain it, it's all faith! Were this same exact pattern found throughout the animal kingdom you may have a point...but this is not the case...so please explain why this random event is only found in species within the Homo Group? Keep in mind that other groups have similar ancestrally inherited variants too...which we did NOT inherit....because we are not of their group. Evolution is not a religion...it is proven science backed by observable evidence,..some of which I have shared with you today. I fear I am wasting my time with you...you are welcome to hold to your beliefs...the telescope is right there in front of you...all you have to do is put your eye to the lens to see that the sun does not rotate around the earth...evolution is real, it is true, it happened...you are an evolved animal descended from a common ancestor of the chimpanzee...the facts are available...but I understand that that reality may conflict with your cherished beliefs Edited July 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
snowflake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Quote Were this same exact pattern found throughout the animal kingdom you may have a point...but this is not the case...so please explain why this random event is only found in species within the Homo Group? Keep in mind that other groups have similar ancestrally inherited variants too...which we did NOT inherit....because we are not of their group. Evolution is not a religion...it is proven science backed by observable evidence,..some of which I have shared with you today. I fear I am wasting my time with you...you are welcome to hold to your beliefs...the telescope is right there in front of you...all you have to do is put your eye to the lens to see that the sun does not rotate around the earth...evolution is real, it is true, it happened...you are an evolved animal descended from a common ancestor of the chimpanzee...the facts are available...but I understand that that reality may conflict with your cherished beliefs We share 98% of the same genes so of course the variant is going to be in there. I agree we have come to a stand still. I appreciate your honesty and respect. Here is a great video on problems with evolution explained, you might enjoy. I know it is a bit long, but worth it.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 21, 2016 Author Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) Quote We share 98% of the same genes so of course the variant is going to be in there. I agree we have come to a stand still. I appreciate your honesty and respect. Here is a great video on problems with evolution explained, you might enjoy. Let me state it in another manner... The odds of a common ancestor is 1 in 1. The odds that evolution is not true are > than 1 in 2,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And you're siding with the most improbable odds... ummm ok Edited July 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
thesometimesaint Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) David Berlinsky is a Senior Fellow at the creationist Discovery Institute. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy A statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. SEE http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450 Edited July 21, 2016 by thesometimesaint
snowflake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 38 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: David Berlinsky is a Senior Fellow at the creationist Discovery Institute. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy A statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. SEE http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450 And your point? Is this an ad-hominem attack or are you going to address his problems with evolutionism?
snowflake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 47 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Let me state it in another manner... The odds of a common ancestor is 1 in 1. The odds that evolution is not true are > than 1 in 2,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And you're siding with the most improbable odds... ummm ok Look at the odds of abiogenesis, they are the same, it's impossible. You insist that because we are here I guess abiogenesis happened? What kind of logic is that? I understand that you are trying to show me that because chimps and humans have a same genetic mutation that's 100% proof of evolution? You have to look at the whole picture, not just a probability equation. Stellar evolution (time space matter), chemical evolution (where did all the elements come from?) organic chemical evolution (abiogenesis, turns in to a protein without DNA or DNA without protein), where did the laws of the universe come from...., gravity, the fine tuning of the universe. You worldview takes more faith than mine. Answer me this question, if the theory of evolution is true which states: Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive. Why can't we prove this in the laboratory like other scientific theories? Bacterium always produce bacterium, dogs always produce dogs. Scientists have been breeding fruit flies in the University for over 100 years and we still just get flies! Literally tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies and they are still flies. Any "scientific theory" by definition must be able to be observed, otherwise it is not science. We get no explanation for the biodiversity through natural selection, period. We just get the same organisms over and over and over and over.
snowflake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: David Berlinsky is a Senior Fellow at the creationist Discovery Institute. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy A statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. SEE http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450 Is molecular biologist at Cambridge and mathematician at 10 other universities somehow disqualify him for explaining his doubts of evolutionism?
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and to most astrophysicists -- who accept the theoretical existence of extraterrestrials who are far more advanced than we are. God almost certainly exists, but the real questions are: Does he listen to our prayers? Did he create our world?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Just now, TheSkepticChristian said: God almost certainly exists, but the real questions are: Does he listen to our prayers? Did he create our world? Yes, what is the ultimate nature of reality? Do our theoretical ramblings make any logical sense, and do they apply to the real universe? Everyone must follow his own conscience and belief as best he can. No testimony is transferable.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 23 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: We do not know HOW abiogenesis happened just that it DID happen Unfortunately, we do not know that it did happen, and we are unable to demonstrate it -- as science requires. Most scientists are moving in the direction of transmission, as with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Makes more scientific sense.
UtahTexan Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Let me state it in another manner... The odds of a common ancestor is 1 in 1. The odds that evolution is not true are > than 1 in 2,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And you're siding with the most improbable odds... ummm ok CFR
Recommended Posts