The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Leroy42 · 01-01-2018 05:51PM

JC, any update on what the real level of scientists accept evolution after you posted that Wilson had found it far from his assumed consensus.

Also, can you clarify if the issue you have is that evolution is wrong since it doesn't answer the question of how life first started or that you think it is totally wrong in that there is an alternative theory to how life ended up at the position we currently at?

J C · 01-01-2018 09:40PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

JC, any update on what the real level of scientists accept evolution after you posted that Wilson had found it far from his assumed consensus.

Most scientists who accept evolution accept it on the word of other scientists. The Paleontologists don't see any gradual transitions in the fossil record ... but then the Paleontologists think that the anatomists have discovered vestigial structures in living creatures ... but the supposed vestigial structures turned out to have useful functions ... but then the Anatomists think that the Molecular Geneticists have discovered genetic relationships in line with common descent from a common ancestor ... but this turns out to be out of line with evolutionary expectations ... but then the Molecular Geneticists think that the Paleontologists have found gradual transitions in the fossil record ... and so it goes around and around ... with everyone thinking that the other one has the evidence for evolution from pondkind to mankind !!

Leroy42 wrote: »

Also, can you clarify if the issue you have is that evolution is wrong since it doesn't answer the question of how life first started or that you think it is totally wrong in that there is an alternative theory to how life ended up at the position we currently at?

The supposed mechanisms for pondkind to mankind evolution simply don't exist ... and the impossibility of the spontaneous generation of life is enshrined in the Scientific Law of Biogenesis.

Safehands · 01-01-2018 11:55PM

J C wrote: »

They are all conventionally qualified scientists ... and they apply conventional scientific standards to their work.

"Conventional" scientists, as you call them, take a piece of evidence, examine it and reach a conclusion. They have it reviewed by their peers.
If contrary evidence is presented they will examine that and consider the results. It's all very...scientific really. But it all starts with evidence.

Creationists scientists, it seems to me, start with a conclusion and work backwards. That conclusion is the bible. Everything is then made to fit.
From what you have written is the past, it seems for example, that you believe that the Earth is about ten thousand years old, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary. You believe that some men in the past lived until they were 900 years old.
You believe in the Nephilim, a type of hybrid being, a giant from the bible. Now, your belief in these creatures is an example of your having a conclusion before having the evidence. A real scientist would find the bones or fossilised remains of such a creature, examine them and reach a conclusion. You read about them in the bible and work backward to justify your belief that they were real creatures.
It's the same with Noah and the ark and many other biblical stories.
Read the story, believe it and try to find evidence to justify it.
That is not the way real science works.
Your arguments centre around dismissing "conventional" science rather than coming up with evidence for your own beliefs and arguing your point from that perspective.
No amount of evidence based science will be considered by you if it doesn't fit in with the biblical stories. No matter what evidence is presented, it will be cleverly dismissed by you if it doesn't fit in with your narrow, biblical based beliefs.

Happy new year.

J C · 02-01-2018 01:27AM

Safehands wrote: »

"Conventional" scientists, as you call them, take a piece of evidence, examine it and reach a conclusion. They have it reviewed by their peers.
If contrary evidence is presented they will examine that and consider the results. It's all very...scientific really. But it all starts with evidence.

I agree ... and its something that the 'pondkind to mankind evolution' (PTME) proponents, who are scientists ... should think about doing !!

Safehands wrote: »

Creationists scientists, it seems to me, start with a conclusion and work backwards. That conclusion is the bible. Everything is then made to fit.
From what you have written is the past, it seems for example, that you believe that the Earth is about ten thousand years old, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary. You believe that some men in the past lived until they were 900 years old.
You believe in the Nephilim, a type of hybrid being, a giant from the bible. Now, your belief in these creatures is an example of your having a conclusion before having the evidence. A real scientist would find the bones or fossilised remains of such a creature, examine them and reach a conclusion. You read about them in the bible and work backward to justify your belief that they were real creatures.
It's the same with Noah and the ark and many other biblical stories.
Read the story, believe it and try to find evidence to justify it.
That is not the way real science works.
Your arguments centre around dismissing "conventional" science rather than coming up with evidence for your own beliefs and arguing your point from that perspective.
No amount of evidence based science will be considered by you if it doesn't fit in with the biblical stories. No matter what evidence is presented, it will be cleverly dismissed by you if it doesn't fit in with your narrow, biblical based beliefs.

Creation Scientists test scientific hypotheses about the issues you have alluded to and much more.
Equally, we don't dismiss evidence for PTME ... it's just that we have never been presented with any evidence that has stood up to scientific evaluation.

Safehands wrote: »

Happy new year.

... and many happy returns.

Leroy42 · 02-01-2018 10:16AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

JC, any update on what the real level of scientists accept evolution after you posted that Wilson had found it far from his assumed consensus.

J C wrote: »

Most scientists who accept evolution accept it on the word of other scientists. The Paleontologists don't see any gradual transitions in the fossil record ... but then the Paleontologists think that the anatomists have discovered vestigial structures in living creatures ... but the supposed vestigial structures turned out to have useful functions ... but then the Anatomists think that the Molecular Geneticists have discovered genetic relationships in line with common descent from a common ancestor ... but this turns out to be out of line with evolutionary expectations ... but then the Molecular Geneticists think that the Paleontologists have found gradual transitions in the fossil record ... and so it goes around and around ... with everyone thinking that the other one has the evidence for evolution from pondkind to mankind !!

So simple answer is that you have no idea. There is a consensus, but you don't know what it represents except for 'most' and Wilson has shown this is not true by stating that 'most' scientists don't believe in it, without giving any actual evidence to back up the claim.

So basically you came on here exclaiming the greatness of this book yet can't actually tell us what it based on.

Secondly, what you are saying is that each different type of scientists seems to work independently from the other areas, working out their own research. Can you provide any backup to your assertion that all the scientists simply assume that the other strands of science is correct and what impact this has on their work?

And stop with the nonsense that we don't have any transitions in the fossil records, there are plenty. The problem is that no matter how many gaps are filled, each new find simply creates a new 'gap' for you to complain about.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Also, can you clarify if the issue you have is that evolution is wrong since it doesn't answer the question of how life first started or that you think it is totally wrong in that there is an alternative theory to how life ended up at the position we currently at?

J C wrote: »

The supposed mechanisms for pondkind to mankind evolution simply don't exist ... and the impossibility of the spontaneous generation of life is enshrined in the Scientific Law of Biogenesis.

So you don't believe that evolution has played any part in the existence of life as it currently stands? You don't believe that any living organism has evolved at all from the time it first arrived?

The only option therefore is that every living thing is as it was the first day. Is that what you think?

J C · 02-01-2018 08:23PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So simple answer is that you have no idea. There is a consensus, but you don't know what it represents except for 'most' and Wilson has shown this is not true by stating that 'most' scientists don't believe in it, without giving any actual evidence to back up the claim.

So basically you came on here exclaiming the greatness of this book yet can't actually tell us what it based on.

Secondly, what you are saying is that each different type of scientists seems to work independently from the other areas, working out their own research. Can you provide any backup to your assertion that all the scientists simply assume that the other strands of science is correct and what impact this has on their work?

And stop with the nonsense that we don't have any transitions in the fossil records, there are plenty. The problem is that no matter how many gaps are filled, each new find simply creates a new 'gap' for you to complain about.

The gaps are broad and deep ... between different Kinds ... and the fossil record now has even fewer 'transitions' than in Darwin's time, because it has turned out that most weren't true transitions at all,

Quote:-"“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information–what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.” David M Raup, 1979

Quote:- “What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. … The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.” Ernst Mayr, 1982

Quote:-“The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, 1982

Quote:-“The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change.” Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, 1982
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemmas/fossil-record/

Leroy42 wrote: »

You don't believe that evolution has played any part in the existence of life as it currently stands? You don't believe that any living organism has evolved at all from the time it first arrived?

The only option therefore is that every living thing is as it was the first day. Is that what you think?

Not quite, Leroy. There is considerable evidence that evolution occurs (quite rapidly) within Kinds ... via selection between the existing genetic and phenotypic variety that is observed in most Kinds.

There is no evidence that spontaneous processes, like mutagenseis, can create any new additional useful genetic information ... and plenty of evidence of the opposite (the destruction of genetic information by mutagenesis).

oscarBravo · 02-01-2018 08:48PM

J C wrote: »

Quote:-"“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information–what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.” David M Raup, 1979

From the same article: "We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change."

If you're going to quote Raup in support of your specious arguments, you either (a) accept his thesis, including the fact of evolution, or (b) you're cherry-picking quotes out of context in an apparent attempt to shore up a position at odds with his, which is intellectually dishonest.

Which is it?

Leroy42 · 02-01-2018 09:14PM

J C wrote: »

The gaps are broad and deep ... between different Kinds ... and the fossil record now has even fewer 'transitions' than in Darwin's time as it has turned out that most weren't true transitions at all,

Quote:-"“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information–what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.” David M Raup, 1979

Quote:- “What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. … The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.” Ernst Mayr, 1982

Quote:-“The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, 1982

Quote:-“The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change.” Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, 1982
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemmas/fossil-record/

So again, you have nothing to back up the claim that there is not a consensus in the scientific world, and what the new level of split is according to Wilson.

For that was the main point of you claim on the book, that Wilson had uncovered that contrary to the assumption that most scientists agreed with evolution he had uncovered many that didn't. I was, and have been since you posted it, merely asked what that actually means, how he arrived at this opinion. Did he research all scientists? Just a select few? From what field did they come from? Had they previously accepted evolution and what was the reason for no longer.

You see, you can't simply put up someones elses opinion as a backup to your opinion, just like you seem to claim that all scientists simply agree with one another.

J C wrote: »

Not quite, Leroy. There is considerable evidence that evolution occurs (quite rapidly) within Kinds ... via selection between the existing genetic and phenotypic variety that is observed in most Kinds.

There is no evidence that spontaneous processes, like mutagenseis, can create any new additional useful genetic information ... and plenty of evidence of the opposite (the destruction of genetic information by mutagenesis).

OK, so you accept that in-kind evolution can and does occur. What do you believe is the reason behind the kinds evolving? Is it simply in response to changing circumstances or external intelligent adjustment to move them along? If the later, surely that calls into question the intelligence of the initial creation? And if the former, then is it internal intelligence that is now adapting the original design to cope better with the environment - again calling into question the intelligence of the original creator since a simple creature now appears to be more wise than God.

Professor Moriarty · 02-01-2018 09:16PM

J C wrote: »

The gaps are broad and deep ... between different Kinds ... and the fossil record now has even fewer 'transitions' than in Darwin's time as it has turned out that most weren't true transitions at all,

Quote:-"“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded … ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information–what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.” David M Raup, 1979

Quote:- “What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. … The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.” Ernst Mayr, 1982

Quote:-“The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, 1982

Quote:-“The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change.” Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, 1982
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemmas/fossil-record/

Not quite, Leroy. There is considerable evidence that evolution occurs (quite rapidly) within Kinds ... via selection between the existing genetic and phenotypic variety that is observed in most Kinds.

There is no evidence that spontaneous processes, like mutagenseis, can create any new additional useful genetic information ... and plenty of evidence of the opposite (the destruction of genetic information by mutagenesis).

How old are dinosaurs?

J C · 03-01-2018 01:28AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How old are dinosaurs?

Not very old ... we have Crocodiles, Scorpions ... and a whole host of other so-called 'living fossils' whose fossils are found in the exact same strata as Dinosaur fossils.
Equally, we have found tissue with intact blood cells in Dinosaur fossils ... this was first found in a suposed '65 million evolutionist years' old T-Rex fossil by Dr Mary Schweitzer of the Smithsonian ... and caused a great deal of 'handwringing' and denial amongst Evolutionists, at the time
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

... but now preserved soft is turning up all over the place ... and in much 'older' fossils (in evolutionist 'years' anyway) ...
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0131/How-a-195-million-year-old-dinosaur-bone-could-still-have-soft-tissue-in-it

... of course, all of this indicates that Dinosaurs lived very recently i.e only thousands of real years ago!!:D

Here is a list of 11 living organisms that have fossils as 'old' as the Dinosaurs ... and yet the living organisms haven't changed one bit since then.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/12-of-the-most-astounding-living-fossils-known-to-sci-1506539384

Of course this proves that no matter how much time elapses ... a Kind of organism will remain roughly the same as the day it was created ... and its diversity is strictly limited the the original levels of genetic diversity that they were imbued with at the moment of their creation.

J C · 03-01-2018 01:45AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

You see, you can't simply put up someones elses opinion as a backup to your opinion, just like you seem to claim that all scientists simply agree with one another.

Of course I can put up somebody elses opinion to backup my own ... doubly so when the are eminent Evolutionist scientists ... who are hostile witness to my ideas on the invalidity of pondkind to mankind evolution ... but who nonetheless confirm my claims about aspects of Evolution that are invalid.

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, so you accept that in-kind evolution can and does occur. What do you believe is the reason behind the kinds evolving? Is it simply in response to changing circumstances or external intelligent adjustment to move them along? If the later, surely that calls into question the intelligence of the initial creation? And if the former, then is it internal intelligence that is now adapting the original design to cope better with the environment - again calling into question the intelligence of the original creator since a simple creature now appears to be more wise than God.

In-kind evolution does occur in response to natural / environmental / sexual selection of the pre-existing genetic diversity imbued into organisms at creation.
This genetic diversity allows populations of organisms to adapt to environmental changes. For example, dense highly insulating hair may be selected for in Dogs in the Arctic and short hair in the tropics ... but they always remain part of the Dog Kind, possessing the characteristics that mark them out as Dogs ... and capable of inter-breeding with each other.

Leroy42 · 03-01-2018 10:25AM

But what triggers the in-kind evolution? Are you suggesting that cells evolve due to cold etc. Is there intelligence behind it?

And you are aware that we have plenty of examples of creatures that have evolved to such an extent that one version can no longer breed (bring forth I think is the biblical term) with one another. Isn't this a new kind?

antiskeptic · 03-01-2018 11:44AM

J C wrote: »

We have found tissue with intact blood cells in Dinosaur fossils ... this was first found in a suposed '65 million evolutionist years' old T-Rex fossil by Dr Mary Schweitzer of the Smithsonian ... and caused a great deal of 'handwringing' and denial amongst Evolutionists, at the time

"We"? This is what Mary (a Christian btw) had to say about the inevitable and simplistic creationist response. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Science says something like "we don't know as much about decay as we thought"

Creationists say "everyone knows soft tissue can't survive 65 million years" (not dissimilar to "everyone knows life can't spontaneously arise from non-life"). Which implies they do know everything about decay / what it takes for life to arise. Which is fitting: since they "know" their reading of the Bible is correct, they don't have to arrive at conclusions scientifically.

(the creationist version of) Common sense trumps the need to be scientific.

-

Note the Gish type gallop here. The Smithsonian article is linked, since that name garners respect among casual readers. The snippet desired is extracted "soft tissue in 65 myo specimen". Appeal to common sense - aka appeal to the broad / non-scientific audience (a.k.a. the masses). Don't worry about actually reading the article itself, which excoriates creationists...

The aim is to win the masses, not engage scientifically. For to engage scientifically means there can be no appeal to "everyone knows"

Professor Moriarty · 03-01-2018 11:57AM

J C wrote: »

Not very old ... we have Crocodiles, Scorpions ... and a whole host of other
so-called 'living fossils' whose fossils are found in the exact same strata as
Dinosaur fossils.
Equally, we have found tissue with intact blood cells in
Dinosaur fossils ... this was first found in a suposed '65 million evolutionist
years' old T-Rex fossil by Dr Mary Schweitzer of the Smithsonian ... and caused
a great deal of 'handwringing' and denial amongst Evolutionists, at the
time
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Schweitzer firmly believes in evolution. If you had read any of her papers you would know this. Or even your own link. Some of her own words here. Note the line I've highlighted:

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

... but now preserved soft is turning up all over the place ... and in much
'older' fossils (in evolutionist 'years' anyway) ...
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0131/How-a-195-million-year-old-dinosaur-bone-could-still-have-soft-tissue-in-it

... of course, all of this indicates that Dinosaurs lived very recently i.e
only thousands of real years ago!!:D

No, it doesn't. Supposedly preserved soft tissue has been found bya few scientists whose methods are questionable to say the least. But even these scientists accept that the fossils are many millions of years old. The article you linked to confirms this. Again, you obviously didn't read the article.

Here is a list of 11 living organisms that have fossils as 'old' as the
Dinosaurs ... and yet the living organisms haven't changed one bit since
then.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/12-of-the-most-astounding-living-fossils-known-to-sci-1506539384

The whole basis of this article is predicated on evolution. Again, you didn't read the article.

Of course this proves that no matter how much time elapses ... a Kind of organism will remain roughly the same as the day it was created ... and its diversity is strictly limited the the original levels of genetic diversity that they were imbued with at the moment of their creation

So species evolve differently and at a different rate? Of course.

Safehands · 03-01-2018 02:15PM

J C wrote: »

Not very old ... we have Crocodiles, Scorpions ... and a whole host of other so-called 'living fossils' whose fossils are found in the exact same strata as Dinosaur fossils.
Equally, we have found tissue with intact blood cells in Dinosaur fossils ... this was first found in a suposed '65 million evolutionist years' old T-Rex fossil by Dr Mary Schweitzer of the Smithsonian ... and caused a great deal of 'handwringing' and denial amongst Evolutionists, at the time
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

See, here we go JC. This proves everything I have been saying about your mindset. This REAL scientist says people like you annoy her. She is not saying, for one microsecond, that this discovery proves dinosaurs are younger than previously thought. You obviously did not read the whole article.
You are prepared to take a small part of an article, providing new evidence (look up that word JC. It's interesting) and place your own twist on it, in an effort to confirm the conclusion you have arrived at, that the bible is the starting point. Every "scientific" endeavour you engage in is an attempt to prove this spurious fact.
It is really interesting that you jump all over Mary Schweitzer's discovery, while you ignore the thousands of eminent articles which clearly demonstrate that the universe is billions of years old. The fact that Mary Schweitzer has stated that you are twisting her results is neither here nor there to you.
If this is the way creation scientists work is it any wonder they have no credibility?

antiskeptic · 03-01-2018 02:59PM

Safehands wrote: »

If this is the way creation scientists work is it any wonder they have no credibility?

Your missing the point.

The point is to propagate the idea among a portion of the masses. Creationists don't care that they've no credibility among that smaller proportion of society which is able to see that their approach is pseudo-scientific. That they seemingly combat for credibility is window dressing: to make it seem as if credibility itself is a matter for discussion.

If they can convince lots of people that their view holds water, then they have a basis for ensuring (for example) creationism is given weight in schools (since it's public view > politics , not science) which determines what's taught.

They also have a need, as does any theological view, to shore up that view against alternatives. It doesn't matter that the 'science' doesn't stack up. What matters is that a plausible, if pseudo, scientific case is made. Hence the reliance on "common sense" (soft tissue can't last 65 mil yr / life can't arise from non-life) as a spearhead for instilling doubt in what conventional science has to say. And the reliance on conspiracy theories.

Creationists are addressing a limited audience, it must be remembered. The only need is that sufficient fall for it.

J C · 03-01-2018 09:00PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

"We"? This is what Mary (a Christian btw) had to say about the inevitable and simplistic creationist response. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Science says something like "we don't know as much about decay as we thought"

... Ironically its the Evolutionists who are the ones twisting logic on its head to explain why/how soft tissue could be preserved perfectly for millions of years ... when the obvious explanation is that it hasn't actually been dead for millions of years.
... by using the totally 'lame' excuse that 'we don't know as much about decay as we thought' ... when we actually do know enough about it to totally rule out soft tissue and blood being preserved over millions of years!!!

antiskeptic wrote: »

Creationists say "everyone knows soft tissue can't survive 65 million years" (not dissimilar to "everyone knows life can't spontaneously arise from non-life"). Which implies they do know everything about decay / what it takes for life to arise. Which is fitting: since they "know" their reading of the Bible is correct, they don't have to arrive at conclusions scientifically.

Please note that the reaction by the Evolutionists was to preserve their unfounded belief in millions of years old fossils by saying that soft tissue and blood cells in fossils means that (quote) 'they don't know everything about decay' ... when it is obvious that the pace of decay, seen in the current world, would rule out the preservation of soft tissue structures for milllions of years.

antiskeptic wrote: »

(the creationist version of) Common sense trumps the need to be scientific.

The Evolutionists first reaction was to criticise Dr Schweitzer’s methods (and some continue to do so) ... because they thought (correctly) that soft tissue couldn't be preserved over millons of years ... and when it was found repeatably, that it was preserved ... across a range of dinosaur fossils ... they didn't look at this damning evidence against millions of years ages for the fossils concerned, with an open mind, as an objective scientist would ... instead they , continued in their beliefs in millions of years ... and tried to justify this belief by concluding that they 'didn't know everything about decay' ... so that they could continue to believe the impossible.
... that pondkind could spontaneously evolve into Mankind ... and blood and soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years ... even though they initially (correctly) rejected this idea as preposterous.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Note the Gish type gallop here. The Smithsonian article is linked, since that name garners respect among casual readers. The snippet desired is extracted "soft tissue in 65 myo specimen". Appeal to common sense - aka appeal to the broad / non-scientific audience (a.k.a. the masses). Don't worry about actually reading the article itself, which excoriates creationists...

The aim is to win the masses, not engage scientifically. For to engage scientifically means there can be no appeal to "everyone knows"

Its actually the Evolutionists who are doing the logical and mental contortions here ... by initially rejecting the finding of soft tissue as impossible for millions of years old Dinosaurs ... and then when faced with repeatably observable proof that there was soft tissue in many dino fossils ... changing their tune to proclaiming that it must somehow be possible ... to preserve soft tissue for millions of years, if Dinosaurs are milions of years old and soft tissue is found in them.
Circular reasoning and self-delusion at its very best!!:)
... and then to top it off ... they accuse Creation Scientists of 'twisting' evidence into fitting their prejudices!!!:eek:
... when all of the mental gymnastics on this issue has been by Evolutionists themselves.

... so not only do we have creatures living today that look exactly like the fossils of these organisms that are found alongside dinosaur fossils in the same rock strata ... we have also found the dinosaur fossils practically still bleeding in the rocks ... and in spite of this, the Evolutionists continue with their belief in millions of years ... because to have any credibility for their 'long slow' Evolution (from pondkind to mankind) that nobody has ever seen in either the fossil record or the biosphere ... they need millions of years ... and they won't let hard facts stand in the way of their favourite story ... that is essential to being an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.

Why some Christians not only continue to join the Atheists in promoting their unfounded beliefs in God-less pondkind to mankind Evolution, but also in their equally unfounded criticism of Creation Scientists, is one of the great mysteries of our times.

It was George Orwell who said that "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”:eek:
... and how right he was !!!

J C · 03-01-2018 09:59PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your missing the point.

The point is to propagate the idea among a portion of the masses. Creationists don't care that they've no credibility among that smaller proportion of society which is able to see that their approach is pseudo-scientific. That they seemingly combat for credibility is window dressing: to make it seem as if credibility itself is a matter for discussion.

If they can convince lots of people that their view holds water, then they have a basis for ensuring (for example) creationism is given weight in schools (since it's public view > politics , not science) which determines what's taught.

They also have a need, as does any theological view, to shore up that view against alternatives. It doesn't matter that the 'science' doesn't stack up. What matters is that a plausible, if pseudo, scientific case is made. Hence the reliance on "common sense" (soft tissue can't last 65 mil yr / life can't arise from non-life) as a spearhead for instilling doubt in what conventional science has to say. And the reliance on conspiracy theories.

Creationists are addressing a limited audience, it must be remembered. The only need is that sufficient fall for it.

You're correct that credibility is important ... and the credibility of 'pondkind to mankind evolution' is completely gone ... but the Evolutionists continue to desperately cling to it ... because 'its the only game in town' for them.
Every other materialistic explanation for the observed diversity and functional perfection of life is even more preposterous !!:)

Leroy42 · 03-01-2018 10:46PM

It is clear that no matter what you will not accept evolution since it disagrees with your wish to have a God.

But you accept that evolution can occur, has occurred. I asked earlier, do you accept that there are documented cases of evolution cases that rises of a new kind, a kind that your god didn't create. For example, the salamander in US https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01

Do you accept that Neanderthal man existed? Do they have any linkage to us?

But what you are really arguing about is not evolution per se, it is the start of life. Which evolution does not claim to have the answer to. But your current position is that life was created out of nothing (possibly some dirt and a rib made from said dirt in the case of Adam and Eve). ou are quick to dismiss evolution as you have yet to understand the enormity of the evidence, yet your stated position has no evidence whatsoever. How do you square that circle in thinking?

J C · 03-01-2018 11:15PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is clear that no matter what you will not accept evolution since it disagrees with your wish to have a God.

I do accept within-kind evolution because there is well documented and repeatably observable evidence for it. I don't accept pondkind to mankind evolution, because there is no evidence for it.
It's actually the Evolutionists who accept evolution, despite all of the evidence against it, because of their wish to not accept God as their (ultimate) Creator.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But you accept that evolution can occur, has occurred. I asked earlier, do you accept that there are documented cases of evolution cases that rises of a new kind, a kind that your god didn't create. For example, the salamander in US https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01

Yes, there are ring species within some Kinds that have evolved using pre-existing diversity to the point where some of the species within the Kind can't interbreed.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you accept that Neanderthal man existed? Do they have any linkage to us?

The Neanderthals are Human ... and the racism around Neanderthal Man is quite deplorable ... but it follows a long ignoble tradition of racism directed against different people groups that are all part of the Human Race.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/magazine/neanderthals-were-people-too.html

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what you are really arguing about is not evolution per se, it is the start of life. Which evolution does not claim to have the answer to. But your current position is that life was created out of nothing (possibly some dirt and a rib made from said dirt in the case of Adam and Eve). ou are quick to dismiss evolution as you have yet to understand the enormity of the evidence, yet your stated position has no evidence whatsoever. How do you square that circle in thinking?

I'm actually arguing about the complete lack of evidence for both the spontaneous generation of life and pondkind to mankind evolution.

Leroy42 · 03-01-2018 11:49PM

J C wrote: »

I do accept within-kind evolution because there is well documented and repeatably observable evidence for it. I don't accept pondkind to mankind evolution, because there is no evidence for it.
It's actually the Evolutionists who accept evolution, despite all of the evidence against it, because of their wish to not accept God as their Creator.

So your position is that evolution can occur, there is evidence for it but that there is no evidence that there is any evolution between kinds, and as you put it, fish to man.

So the only thing you are missing is evidence that evolution could occur between kinds, once you have that you will accept it.

J C wrote: »

Yes there are ring Kinds that have evolved using pre-existing diversity to the point where species within the Kind can't interbreed.

Which using the biblical interpretation of the word kind means that a new kind has evolved. So now you accept that one kind can lead to a new type of kind. So your line is that they can't be that different, just a different species. So your point about evolution between kinds is now mute as well.

J C wrote: »

They are us ... and the racism around Neanderthal Man is quite deplorable ... but follows a long ignoble tradition of racism directed against different people groups that are all part of the Human Race.

So you don't see any difference in the make up between the two forms, you think they are only differences akin to skin colour? There are notable physical differences between humans and Neanderthals, such as the Neanderthal has thicker bones, shorter limbs, an asymmetrical humerus, barrel chest and thicker metacarpals. In addition, significant difference exist between human and Neanderthal in their DNA. Fossil and archaeological evidence prove a distinct separation between Neanderthals and the modern Homo sapiens. So what is your theory on how this differences happened, as it appears that we are more developed?

Were Adam and Eve Neanderthals, and as such we are no longer in Gods image? Or were they humans, from which Neaderthals evolved but then died out because (the rapid according to you) evolution wasn't enough to let them survive?

And if Adam and Eve were humans or even if they were neanderthals, which do you believe is really part of Gods plan because no where in the bible does it mention that God created two versions.

And if Adam and Eve were the forebearers, how come we didn't all end up as one or the other? Did Eve have a baby Neanderthal and then a human?

But lets try and think this through then. Adam and Eve are created by God in his image. From the all human life comes. At some point, and significant divergence from them evolved and moved away from the rest. Now, did this happen prior to or after the flood?

And why, if God had made a perfect human, did we even want to evolve? I can understand it in terms of the animals, for they are not direct images of God and were made for us, but it seems odd that God would create Adam and Eve and then go about allowing his creation to morph itself.

J C wrote: »

I'm actually arguing about the complete lack of evidence for both the spontaneous generation of life and pondkind to mankind evolution.

You aren't really though are you. You believe that life came from nothing. Nothing at all. There was no light, no atmosphere, nothing. Even science doesn't attempt to make that claim.

J C · 04-01-2018 12:11AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So your position is that evolution can occur, there is evidence for it but that there is no evidence that there is any evolution between kinds, and as you put it, fish to man.

So the only thing you are missing is evidence that evolution could occur between kinds, once you have that you will accept it.

I would accept it ... if such evidence were to be discovered.
... which is more than can be said about the committed evolutioinists who don't accept the overwhelming evidence for Direct Creation right before their eyes.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which using the biblical interpretation of the word kind means that a new kind has evolved. So now you accept that one kind can lead to a new type of kind. So your line is that they can't be that different, just a different species. So your point about evolution between kinds is now mute as well.

Speciation can and does occur within Created Kinds ... using the originally created genetic diversity within most Kinds.
Different species within a Kind are not multiple or new Kinds.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you don't see any difference in the make up between the two forms, you think they are only differences akin to skin colour? There are notable physical differences between humans and Neanderthals, such as the Neanderthal has thicker bones, shorter limbs, an asymmetrical humerus, barrel chest and thicker metacarpals.

I know a guy down at the Rugby Club, who has all of these characteristics ... in spades ... but he is also a Doctor ... and a gentleman!!!:)

Leroy42 wrote: »

In addition, significant difference exist between human and Neanderthal in their DNA. Fossil and archaeological evidence prove a distinct separation between Neanderthals and the modern Homo sapiens. So what is your theory on how this differences happened, as it appears that we are more developed?

Neanderthals are just a sub-group of Human Beings ... with all of the faculties of every other Human Being.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Were Adam and Eve Neanderthals, and as such we are no longer in Gods image? Or were they humans, from which Neaderthals evolved but then died out because (the rapid according to you) evolution wasn't enough to let them survive?

Adam and Eve were the common ancestors of the entire Human Race ... including so-called 'Neanderthals' !!!

Leroy42 wrote: »

And if Adam and Eve were humans or even if they were neanderthals, which do you believe is really part of Gods plan because no where in the bible does it mention that God created two versions.

God didn't create two versions of Humanity ... it's fallen scientists who have created artificial differentiations between different Human populations, including 'Neanderthals' ... just like they used to differentiate between different so-called 'races' of people ... until it was pointed out to them that it was all racism ... and we all belong to the same Human Race.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And if Adam and Eve were the forebearers, how come we didn't all end up as one or the other? Did Eve have a baby Neanderthal and then a human?

No ... she just had sons like me ... and my rugby-playing, doctor friend !!!:)

Leroy42 wrote: »

But lets try and think this through then. Adam and Eve are created by God in his image. From the all human life comes. At some point, and significant divergence from them evolved and moved away from the rest. Now, did this happen prior to or after the flood?

All of the diverse people groups that now make up Humanity arose after the Flood.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And why, if God had made a perfect human, did we even want to evolve? I can understand it in terms of the animals, for they are not direct images of God and were made for us, but it seems odd that God would create Adam and Eve and then go about allowing his creation to morph itself.

God created perfect Humans ... with the potential to produce diverse perfect children.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You aren't really though are you. You believe that life came from nothing. Nothing at all. There was no light, no atmosphere, nothing. Even science doesn't attempt to make that claim.

The Big Bang is as close to nothing as its possible to get ... but the difference between the materialistic hypothesis that 'first there was nothing and it blew up.'
... the creationist hypothesis that 'first there was God and then He created.'
... is one of plausibility ... and capacity.:)

Leroy42 · 04-01-2018 09:20AM

J C wrote: »

I would accept it ... if such evidence were to be discovered.
... which is more than can be said about the committed evolutioinists who don't accept the overwhelming evidence for Direct Creation right before their eyes.

But I have already provided the situation with regards to the Salamander. That is clear evidence of a new kind being created. The biblical definition of kind (which is the only reference) is one that can bear fruit with its own kind. So you accept it then? You asked for evidence, you were provided with it.

There is also no evidence of direct creation. There is a lack of evidence of any explanation of how life started, but surely a magic man in the sky is only one of the options?

J C wrote: »

Speciation can and does occur within Created Kinds ... using the originally created genetic diversity within most Kinds.
Different species within a Kind are not multiple or new Kinds.

What is your definition of kind then. Since I have taken it to be based on Genesis where Noah was tasked with bring two of every kind. Based on your reasoning, he could have brought two different Salamanders, not possible to breed with one another and thus the last two. Surely that cannot be correct?

J C wrote: »

I know a guy down at the Rugby Club, who has all of these characteristics ... in spades ... but he is also a Doctor ... and a gentleman!!!:)

Neanderthals are just a sub-group of Human Beings ... with all of the faculties of every other Human Being.

Adam and Eve were the common ancestors of the entire Human Race ... including so-called 'Neanderthals' !!!

So now you are challenging the science on Neanderthals. Now is this just your opinion or do you have actual evidence to back up this assertion. You do realise that there are significant differences between humans and Neanderthals, and not just superficially as you seem to be suggesting with your claim that they are no different than any other race. For a start they have different DNA to humans. Closer to us than apes, but different.

But if something like DNA is not sufficient to separate 'kinds' then you can easily accept that we are from the same family as Apes.

J C wrote: »

God didn't create two versions of Humanity ... it's fallen scientists who have created artificial differentiations between different Human populations, including 'Neanderthals' ... just like they used to differentiate between different so-called 'races' of people ... until it was pointed out to them that it was all racism ... and we all belong to the same Human Race.

Well, no can't know what God really did, only what you have read. It appears to me that you are willing to ignore any science if it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas, despite your continued assertions that all you require is evidence.

These fallen scientists, is this another conspiracy or is it just that they are scared to cause offence?

J C wrote: »

No ... she just had sons like me ... and my rugby-playing, doctor friend !!!:)

So where did the different strand of DNA come from?

J C wrote: »

All of the diverse people groups that now make up Humanity arose after the Flood.

So there was only one race prior to the flood? Why would humans have evolved after the flood and not before? What was inherently wrong with Noahs genes that have required humans to evolve in such diverse ways since?

When did the changes occur?

J C wrote: »

God created perfect Humans ... with the potential to produce diverse perfect children.

But why? If god created humans as to ascertain, they why would he then give the power to create other humans over to humans? Why not just create them himself, whereby there would be no need fo all this diversity and he could churn out exact copies. There is simply no need for the whole pregnancy and childbirth, and the potential complications that can occur, if the creator can simply snap his fingers

J C wrote: »

The Big Bang is as close to nothing as its possible to get ... but the difference between the materialistic hypothesis that 'first there was nothing and it blew up.'
... the creationist hypothesis that 'first there was God and then He created.'
... is one of plausibility ... and capacity.:)

Not at all. The big bang, is actually an expansion from a singularity. It wasn't that there was nothing and it blew up! And life wasn't created from nothing. The hypothesis is that chemicals mixed together to spark life (we still have not got any further as to how) but again, not from nothing.

You position is exactly from nothing. God came from Nothing, and out of nothing he create everything. If, on your understanding of the big bang and evolution, nothing can come from nothing, how can God create anything from nothing?

oscarBravo · 04-01-2018 10:10AM

From which of Noah's children did Neanderthals evolve?

Safehands · 04-01-2018 11:09AM

J C wrote: »

... the creationist hypothesis that 'first there was God and then He created.'
... is one of plausibility ... and capacity.:)

As a scientist give us give us a scientific reference which proves that. (The Bible is not a scientific reference)

Professor Moriarty · 04-01-2018 11:25AM

J C wrote: »

I do accept within-kind evolution because there is well documented and repeatably observable evidence for it. I don't accept pondkind to mankind evolution, because there is no evidence for it.
It's actually the Evolutionists who accept evolution, despite all of the evidence against it, because of their wish to not accept God as their (ultimate) Creator.

Yes, there are ring species within some Kinds that have evolved using pre-existing diversity to the point where some of the species within the Kind can't interbreed.

The Neanderthals are Human ... and the racism around Neanderthal Man is quite deplorable ... but it follows a long ignoble tradition of racism directed against different people groups that are all part of the Human Race.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/magazine/neanderthals-were-people-too.html

I'm actually arguing about the complete lack of evidence for both the spontaneous generation of life and pondkind to mankind evolution.

I note you didn't respond to my post regarding your links that you hadn't read. Anyway, regarding "complete lack of evidence":

How about this study by Theobald as described in National Geographic?

Or this further study by Durand of Wits University that found the one remaining missing microscopic link in the evolutionary chain?

Or this report which simplifies Durand's research.

Or this report by Sebé-Pedrós et al of similar research that further validates Durand's work.

Can you refute the theories in these links using science?

antiskeptic · 04-01-2018 02:38PM

J C wrote: »

You're correct that credibility is important ... and the credibility of 'pondkind to mankind evolution' is completely gone.

Credibility lies in the eye of the various beholders. There are the beholders who value scientific method from a position of either professional or serious lay understanding. Creationism loses hands down there.

Then there is the wider public beholder: those who aren't in a position to truly evaluate the ToE position but who, on the basis of an (understandable) global trust in the scientific endeavour, consider ToE credible. Creationism loses hands down there too.

We are not talking the truth of the matter here, since credibility says nothing about the truth of the matter. The credibility might be objectively unwarranted and misplaced. It might be that credibility is heavily influenced by a secular outlook and that people need to believe ToE because it fits with their godless worldview. Nevertheless, it is as it is.

-

The only place credibility is gone is in the eyes of a minority: theists with a creationist outlook.

storker · 04-01-2018 02:48PM

J C wrote: »

overwhelming evidence for Direct Creation right before their eyes.

Which evidence is that?

antiskeptic · 04-01-2018 02:57PM

storker wrote: »

Which evidence is that?

It starts here:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

and is propped up by the idea that it's self-evident that life cannot arise from non-life.

Safehands · 04-01-2018 03:07PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It starts here:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

and is propped up by the idea that it's self-evident that life cannot arise from non-life.

Passages from the Bible are not scientific evidence of anything.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments