No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[Elin]

1. Life proceeding from a single organism does not explain the origin of that single organism itself. First life isn't Darwin's forté, the progression of established life is.

2. None have been 'disproven', some have been accepted as scientific fact. Even if God created life, my friend, what did he create it from? Was it not chemicals? And what are we made of, if not chemicals? And what is abiogenesis except the theory that life arose from inert chemicals? Abiogenesis theory does not in any way contradict the bible, it simply omits the hand that guided the process. It confirms that the process happened, it simply does not ask 'why'.

And where did the chemicals come from?

You can't avoid a First Cause, who created from absolutely nothing,
which is precisely what the Bible reports. . .he spoke it all into being.

And soft "science" has not proved otherwise, nor can it do so.
It is out of its realm when dealing with what it did not observe.
It's theory of evolution of one species into another has not, and cannot, be observed,
nor established from geological records.

The geological column is complete.
There are no connections between the species.
Each species appears instantaneously in the geological column.

 

[Pottyone]

1. Life proceeding from a single organism does not explain the origin of that single organism itself. First life isn't Darwin's forté, the progression of established life is.

2. None have been 'disproven', some have been accepted as scientific fact. Even if God created life, my friend, what did he create it from? Was it not chemicals? And what are we made of, if not chemicals? And what is abiogenesis except the theory that life arose from inert chemicals? Abiogenesis theory does not in any way contradict the bible, it simply omits the hand that guided the process. It confirms that the process happened, it simply does not ask 'why'.

3. Microbes can evolve into different microbes. 'Micro-evolution' is not a scientifically valid term because those who use it tend to say things like 'a horse doesn't become a monkey overnight', which in itself is a terrible, incorrect view of what evolution is. Small changes are called mutations, and we see them every day. Those mutations 'add-up', if you like, over millions of years, and the result is something very different from something else. Microbes have been studied over several years in labs, and they do become so different to the original microbe that they may be considered different microbes, however even our definitions of family, genus and species are open to skewed interpretation. I could in fact say that since horse and human are mammals, but a human does not evolve into a horse, that evolution is false. But if I did say that, I'd look very ignorant of evolutionary theory. Organisms tend to evolve into like organisms.

4. Nothing in Mendel's work really disproves Darwinian evolutionary theory, it just explains gaps in Darwin's model. Natural selection, the evolutionary origin, these are Darwinian concepts Mendel did nothing to disprove. Mendel's work was with geneticism and inherited traits, and he discovered dominant genes etc, things that Darwin couldn't study during the time he lived. The ideas of both were similar: we inherit genes vs our characteristics blend, both hypothesized a passing on of traits somehow, it's just that Mendel was able to explain it in more depth than Darwin.

Hi Esanta,
li have just read your interesting post and suggest that rather than me saying much about your comments perhaps you should have a wee look back over previous posts as all of the points that you raise have all been discussed previously and at length.
suffice it to say that ...point 1 Darwin failed to show any progression from one type to another.
point 2 Abiogenesis is not only not a proven scientific theory, it is in fact a fairy tale and the only research to date are a series of i connectable experiments which have no thermodynamic direction let alone any raison d'être.
point3 no scientist would even suggest that the "mutations observed....add up" to anything that would constitute evolution. Yes there are some examples of genetic variation leading to variation within genus but nothing more. All observable mutations have been shown to produce a loss of genetic information and a move which agrees with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics moving towards entropy.
point 4 natural selection is universally accepted but THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION and there has never been any evidence of natural selection leading one genus of organism to change into another.

i would really love someone who has faith in the theory of evolution to produce even just one pice of scientific experimental data that "proves" the theory of evolution. 1 piece just one thats all I want.

 

[Esanta]

And where did the chemicals come from?

You can't avoid a First Cause, who created from absolutely nothing,
which is precisely what the Bible reports. . .he spoke it all into being.

And soft "science" has not proved otherwise, nor can it do so.
It is out of its realm when dealing with what it did not observe.
It's theory of evolution of one species into another has not, and cannot, be observed,
nor established from geological records.

The geological column is complete.
There are no connections between the species.
Each species appears instantaneously in the geological column.

Saying we can't paint a picture of the past isn't a good argument. We do it every day. Saying that because the bible says something came from nothing, that evolution is false, is also a terrible argument. Evolution deals with progression of life, not origins of the universe. You need to stop changing goalposts.

 

[Esanta]

Hi Esanta,
li have just read your interesting post and suggest that rather than me saying much about your comments perhaps you should have a wee look back over previous posts as all of the points that you raise have all been discussed previously and at length.
suffice it to say that ...point 1 Darwin failed to show any progression from one type to another.
point 2 Abiogenesis is not only not a proven scientific theory, it is in fact a fairy tale and the only research to date are a series of i connectable experiments which have no thermodynamic direction let alone any raison d'être.
point3 no scientist would even suggest that the "mutations observed....add up" to anything that would constitute evolution. Yes there are some examples of genetic variation leading to variation within genus but nothing more. All observable mutations have been shown to produce a loss of genetic information and a move which agrees with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics moving towards entropy.
point 4 natural selection is universally accepted but THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION and there has never been any evidence of natural selection leading one genus of organism to change into another.

i would really love someone who has faith in the theory of evolution to produce even just one pice of scientific experimental data that "proves" the theory of evolution. 1 piece just one thats all I want.

The acquisition and inheritance of genetic mutations is the mechanism whereby organisms change. They do add up. One organism mutates, reproduces and passes it on while the original unmutated form continues as it did before. The mutated organism then may mutate again, leaving three similar but slightly different organisms. This 'branching out' and acquisition of multiple mutations in a single lineage - lineage having fewer or more mutations than another lineage - is inherently what evolution is and is how varied species came to be. If you deny that, you clearly don't understand it.

Likewise, you don't seem to know much about thermodynamics. Entropy can decrease in particular parts of a closed system even if the overall entropy increases.

And another thing, if a new protein is created, that is a gain in information, not a loss.

 

[Elin]

Saying we can't paint a picture of the past isn't a good argument. We do it every day. Saying that because the bible says something came from nothing, that evolution is false, is also a terrible argument.
Evolution deals with progression of life, not origins of the universe.
You need to stop changing goalposts.

Sorry, they are the same goalpost.

Previously addressed.

The origin of all life species was not evolutionary, but instantaneous.

There is no evolution of one species into another.

 

[Esanta]

Saying we can't paint a picture of the past isn't a good argument. We do it every day. Saying that because the bible says something came from nothing, that evolution is false, is also a terrible argument. Evolution deals with progression of life, not origins of the universe. You need to stop changing goalposts.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, they are the same goalpost.

Previously addressed.

The origin of all life species was not evolutionary, but instantaneous.

There is no evolution of one species into another.

Here's one for you, Elin. If you really believe the Earth was created in six days, and you disagree with evolution, why are you even bothering to attempt scientific logic at all? Literally, it is like me saying I believe the Earth is flat because pope so-and-so said it hundreds of years ago, then throwing some shaky science around to disprove anyone who's observed enough to understand that it's round.

 

[4enlightment]

[video=youtube_share;7fhNP3FSnKI]http://youtu.be/7fhNP3FSnKI[/video]

 

[Esanta]

[video=youtube_share;7fhNP3FSnKI]http://youtu.be/7fhNP3FSnKI[/video]

Cause the director of Search for the Truth Ministries wouldn't be biased at all.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Here's one for you, Elin. If you really believe the Earth was created in six days, and you disagree with evolution, why are you even bothering to attempt scientific logic at all? Literally, it is like me saying I believe the Earth is flat because pope so-and-so said it hundreds of years ago, then throwing some shaky science around to disprove anyone who's observed enough to understand that it's round.

Creation theories are as numerous and as much a scientific theory as are the Chaos theories. Evolution is a theory and can be molded or twisted to either of those theories is how I see it.

The whole evolution debate therefore is so stale.

Lol now that you mention shape of the earth though. It's a curious choice of flag for the UN isn't it? Then again maybe not so curious considerring some people actually used to think we live on a ball that's tilted, wobbling, and spinning 1,000 mph.

 

[Esanta]

Creation theories are as numerous and as much a scientific theory as are the Chaos theories. Evolution is a theory and can be molded or twisted to either of those theories is how I see it.

The whole evolution debate therefore is so stale.

Lol now that you mention shape of the earth though. It's a curious choice of flag for the UN isn't it? Then again maybe not so curious considerring some people actually used to think we live on a ball that's tilted, wobbling, and spinning 1,000 mph.

View attachment 83910

Observe the horizon. It proves the Earth is round.

 

[Elin]

Saying we can't paint a picture of the past isn't a good argument. We do it every day.
Saying that because the bible says something came from nothing, that evolution is false, is also a terrible argument.
Evolution deals with progression of life, not origins of the universe.
You need to stop changing goalposts.

Sorry, they are the same goalpost.

Previously addressed.

The origin of all life species was not evolutionary, but instantaneous.

There is no evolution of one species into another.

Here's one for you, Elin. If you really believe the Earth was created in six days, and you disagree with evolution,
why are you even bothering to attempt scientific logic at all? Literally, it is like me saying I believe the Earth is flat because pope so-and-so said it hundreds of years ago, then throwing some shaky science around to disprove anyone who's observed enough to understand that it's round.

Scientific logic is good as far as it goes, but it cannot go far enough in all areas.

Hard science on the proven laws of physics is not to be ignored.

Soft science on the evolution of one species into another is only a theory,
for there is no conclusive proof, as there are for the hard sciences.

I do not expect medicine to answer the questions of philosophy,
nor do I expect physics to answer the questions of theology,
and I do not expect science to answer questions outside its realm,
which is limited to what can be observed and recreated in the lab.

 

[Pottyone]

The acquisition and inheritance of genetic mutations is the mechanism whereby organisms change. They do add up. One organism mutates, reproduces and passes it on while the original unmutated form continues as it did before. The mutated organism then may mutate again, leaving three similar but slightly different organisms. This 'branching out' and acquisition of multiple mutations in a single lineage - lineage having fewer or more mutations than another lineage - is inherently what evolution is and is how varied species came to be. If you deny that, you clearly don't understand it.

Likewise, you don't seem to know much about thermodynamics. Entropy can decrease in particular parts of a closed system even if the overall entropy increases.

And another thing, if a new protein is created, that is a gain in information, not a loss.

Thanks for your reply Esanta....food for thought.
your point regarding the "branching out " of mutations in no way explains anything to do with evolution from one genus or type to another. These mutations in every known case of any significance lead to a degradation in the organism and not an increasingly complex organism as would be required for evolution as is commonly understood .
With regard to the thermodynamics issue of the theory of Abiogenesis I concede that within living systems the flow of Free energy into the system will thermo dynamically produce equilibrium and therefore a conservation of entropy in the system as a whole. My apologies for suggesting otherwise. The issue however is not conservation of entropy with regard to energy but rather that mutation causes an increase of entropy with regard to information....ie a loss of information.
the information within a cell is not the amount of protein contained within that cell but rather relates to the DNA alone with is the information hub of the cell. Mutations DO NOT lead to an increase in information within the DNA of a cell. The process is a one way downward spiral, incapable no matter what the timescale, of producing an increase in organisms' complexity....Sorry!

 

[Esanta]

Scientific logic is good as far as it goes, but it cannot go far enough in all areas.

Hard science on the proven laws of physics is not to be ignored.

Soft science on the evolution of one species into another is only a theory,
for there is no conclusive proof, as there are for the hard sciences.

I do not expect medicine to answer the questions of philosophy,
nor do I expect physics to answer the questions of theology,
and I do not expect science to answer questions outside its realm,
which is limited to what can be observed and recreated in the lab.

If hard science based upon the proven laws of physics can't be ignored, then neither can the fact that the Earth is older than 6000 years old.

 

[Esanta]

Thanks for your reply Esanta....food for thought.
your point regarding the "branching out " of mutations in no way explains anything to do with evolution from one genus or type to another. These mutations in every known case of any significance lead to a degradation in the organism and not an increasingly complex organism as would be required for evolution as is commonly understood .
With regard to the thermodynamics issue of the theory of Abiogenesis I concede that within living systems the flow of Free energy into the system will thermo dynamically produce equilibrium and therefore a conservation of entropy in the system as a whole. My apologies for suggesting otherwise. The issue however is not conservation of entropy with regard to energy but rather that mutation causes an increase of entropy with regard to information....ie a loss of information.
the information within a cell is not the amount of protein contained within that cell but rather relates to the DNA alone with is the information hub of the cell. Mutations DO NOT lead to an increase in information within the DNA of a cell. The process is a one way downward spiral, incapable no matter what the timescale, of producing an increase in organisms' complexity....Sorry!

You're wrong. DNA is a complex carboyhydohated phosphate molecule, and the forming of new proteins equates to a scientific gain of information. I never said that mutations lead to deoxyribonucleic acidic gains in information, I said that the formation of new proteins equates to a gain in information. Obviously you don't understand that DNA isn't protein. This argument of yours 'mutations do not lead to an increase of information within the DNA cell' misunderstands the argument I was presenting, and it also shows that you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.

You opnely merge abiogenesis theory into arguments against the theory of evolution when the two deal with different things, and you talk about 'conservation of entropy' which is a turn of phrase I've never heard - one you've obviously confused with the fact that the laws of thermodynamics are to do with the conservation of energy. You're also mistaken that mutation alwasy causes a loss of information.

You need to realize that this argument against evolution 'mutations lead to a loss of DNA information' is a skewed argument. ALL DNA is made of four chemicals, and four chemicals only. DNA within different species simply shows a different combination of those chemicals; some genetic codes are lengthier than others, and all have different combinations of pairs of chemicals.

You are also blatantly wrong that evolutionary progression decreases complexity. Humans are more complex than many organisms that came before them.

Would you say an amoeba is more complex than a human? That's basically what you're saying.

 

[Pottyone]

You're wrong. DNA is a complex carboyhydohated phosphate molecule, and the forming of new proteins equates to a scientific gain of information. I never said that mutations lead to deoxyribonucleic acidic gains in information, I said that the formation of new proteins equates to a gain in information. Obviously you don't understand that DNA isn't protein. This argument of yours 'mutations do not lead to an increase of information within the DNA cell' misunderstands the argument I was presenting, and it also shows that you don't seem to understand what you're talking about.

You opnely merge abiogenesis theory into arguments against the theory of evolution when the two deal with different things, and you talk about 'conservation of entropy' which is a turn of phrase I've never heard - one you've obviously confused with the fact that the laws of thermodynamics are to do with the conservation of energy. You're also mistaken that mutation alwasy causes a loss of information.

You need to realize that this argument against evolution 'mutations lead to a loss of DNA information' is a skewed argument. ALL DNA is made of four chemicals, and four chemicals only. DNA within different species simply shows a different combination of those chemicals; some genetic codes are lengthier than others, and all have different combinations of pairs of chemicals.

You are also blatantly wrong that evolutionary progression decreases complexity. Humans are more complex than many organisms that came before them.

Would you say an amoeba is more complex than a human? That's basically what you're saying.

Hi Esanta, I'm sorry that my understanding of terms is not yours and I think that we may need to agree to disagree on a number of points.
i do understand that DNA is not protein, but my point is that the "increase in information" that is contained within a cell is only a reference to the " information" contained within the nucleus and de facto the DNA molecule itself. I thought that you were suggesting that scientists consider information gain to include the number of protein molecule types within a cell, which is not a recognised measure of cellular "information" gain.
It was you in your posting who brought up the notion of abiogenesis. I agree that it has no place in any discussion on evolution and is not connected in any way in fact as I said earlier it is in fact unproven in any way to have anything even to do with the origin of life. It is nothing more than an attempt to connect a series of laboratory experiments together into a theory. The crux of the matter with abiogenesis is that there is still no driving force to create "life" from chemicals...but perhaps you agree with that and I am misunderstanding your point. I have already conceded that I was in error to suggest that within living systems thermodynamic conservation of energy can not be achieved. I think that its always good to admit that you are wrong.
With reference to the discussion about mutations leading to a gain in information....which observable mutations are you referring to?
Anyway, listen, as I'm writing this to you I am realising something....our conversation is going downhill and really what either you or I say doesn't really matter. What matters is the truth of God's word. Do you trust in God's Word Esanta?
our relationship with Christ I believe means that ALL tHat is important is that The Lord is glorified and that we are a witness for Him as to His saving Grace. So as for me, I wish you well Esanta and I pray that we will both put ourselves in Gods hands that He will reveal His truth to us and that we will faithfully trust in His leading for our walk.
My original reason for starting this thread was to discuss the effect that a lack of belief in the Genesis account can have on the gospel message, not the unprovable, untestable theories of en such as you or I. I am therefore going to confine any future postings to this subject as the current direction of our postings is I believe only leading to unnecessary "conflict" as can be seen by your tone. God bless Esanta.

 

[yesyoushould]

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Tintin]

Cause the director of Search for the Truth Ministries wouldn't be biased at all.

Everyone has a bias, even you Santa. You're losing it.

 

[Timeline]

Honest question here.

How many museums are there that have a decent display for evolution?

I just tried to search for this information and it looked like the Smithsonian was the only one. I found a list of about 70 museums in the US that contained dinosaur fossils, but no list for evolution museums. Maybe someone could help me out.

 

[Timeline]

Honest question here.

How many museums are there that have a decent display for evolution?

I just tried to search for this information and it looked like the Smithsonian was the only one. I found a list of about 70 museums in the US that contained dinosaur fossils, but no list for evolution museums. Maybe someone could help me out.

I'm sure that the Smithsonian isn't the only one, but I am either taking the wrong approach in my search or there aren't very many museums that have evolution exhibits.

Of course I mean actual fossils - not just "helpful" info.

 

[Timeline]

I keep finding the same 14 skulls and some "well-founded evolution of the horse" (featuring hand-drawn pictures). As well as a several sites offering a bunch of "information" and no pictures of fossils.